Range dilemma

[oldtrlrnr]

Recently I set up a wi-fi LAN for some friends. It works OK within rooms adjacent to the one where the Linksys WRT54g router is, but one room further, which is where they want to spend time working on laptops, the signal is so weak they cannot communicate reliably. (I measured it with inSSIDer on my laptop.)

There is no easy/clean way to pull a Cat-5 cable between the base and usage rooms, and they do not want to set up a repeater in the room in-between, for aesthetic reasons.

I had first thought to get an 802.11n router, but from what I'm reading now, it seems they provide better throughput but not better range.

This is more a wall problem than a distance problem - the distance is less than I can cover in my home with my WRT54g, but there are more walls in-between, and they have foil-covered insulation. However I have another friend with a two-year-old draft-n router that covers his whole two-story house.

So I'm looking for solutions ...
- 802.11n router with better range (does such a thing exist?)
- Better antennas on WRT54g?
- other suggestions?

Grateful for any advice.

Bob

 

[stevech]

Recently I set up a wi-fi LAN for some friends. It works OK within rooms adjacent to the one where the Linksys WRT54g router is, but one room further, which is where they want to spend time working on laptops, the signal is so weak they cannot communicate reliably. (I measured it with inSSIDer on my laptop.)

There is no easy/clean way to pull a Cat-5 cable between the base and usage rooms, and they do not want to set up a repeater in the room in-between, for aesthetic reasons.

I had first thought to get an 802.11n router, but from what I'm reading now, it seems they provide better throughput but not better range.

This is more a wall problem than a distance problem - the distance is less than I can cover in my home with my WRT54g, but there are more walls in-between, and they have foil-covered insulation. However I have another friend with a two-year-old draft-n router that covers his whole two-story house.

So I'm looking for solutions ...
- 802.11n router with better range (does such a thing exist?)
- Better antennas on WRT54g?
- other suggestions?

Grateful for any advice.

Bob

As in real estate.. It's Antennas, Antennas, Antennas.
Drywall walls? Usually, these are low attenuation.

Some ideas

Better position for the router - where there is less furniture in the path to the other rooms.

Higher gain antenna on router. Maybe not omni but a patch with 10-15dBi gain. Aim accordingly.

Better device on client end. If laptop, consider a USB WiFi adapter on the end of a 6 ft USB extension cord, so it can be elevated. Even a USB dongle WiFi.

Access point in attic over the room. Connected by CAT5 in attic to room with router.

I use a pair of MoCA boxes. One connects to router and TV coax. Other connects to TV coax in other part of house, and at that place, there's an ethernet connection. There, one could put a WiFi access point (or router faked to be an access point-cheaper).

 

[tipstir]

Recently I set up a wi-fi LAN for some friends. It works OK within rooms adjacent to the one where the Linksys WRT54g router is, but one room further, which is where they want to spend time working on laptops, the signal is so weak they cannot communicate reliably. (I measured it with inSSIDer on my laptop.)

There is no easy/clean way to pull a Cat-5 cable between the base and usage rooms, and they do not want to set up a repeater in the room in-between, for aesthetic reasons.

I had first thought to get an 802.11n router, but from what I'm reading now, it seems they provide better throughput but not better range.

This is more a wall problem than a distance problem - the distance is less than I can cover in my home with my WRT54g, but there are more walls in-between, and they have foil-covered insulation. However I have another friend with a two-year-old draft-n router that covers his whole two-story house.

So I'm looking for solutions ...
- 802.11n router with better range (does such a thing exist?)
- Better antennas on WRT54g?
- other suggestions?

Grateful for any advice.

Bob

Boy your client makes it how to solve the issue. What type of dwelling is this?
Metal home (trailer house), Condo, Townhouse, regular house? CAT Ethernet can be ran outside then back into the house.

Interference hurts these wireless routers, wireless repeaters, wireless access points. Best to use hardwired from the router to the wireless access point. Another way I use do this like this, where I didn't want to use Ethernet cable and setup this shown in the picture.

http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL1099/4465559/21344768/359074043.jpg

 

[lifespeed]

but there are more walls in-between, and they have foil-covered insulation.

Interior walls? With foil-covered insulation? That will be hard to deal with. Never heard of insulation inside interior walls . . .

Only two things that might help are ethernet cable to an AP in the attic (I know, nobody wants to do the hard work) or a better or different type of antenna.

 

[oldtrlrnr]

It's a residential home, but like an art gallery (the guy is a sculptor/artist). Ugly wires or extraneous appliances are verboten except in back room where cable Internet comes in. Problem is, they want to work on laptops in a room at opposite end of house.

There is no attic. Insulation in interior walls makes no sense to me either, but that's what they told me.

Is there any N router that might have more range than the WRT54g?

If not, seems antennas would be the best alternative. I'm looking at Ethernet-over-power-line and Ethernet-over-coax, but adapter prices look pretty high.

Appreciate any suggestions or pointers.

Tx.

Bob

 

[lifespeed]

There is no attic. Insulation in interior walls makes no sense to me either, but that's what they told me.

Is there any N router that might have more range than the WRT54g?

No crawl space either, I suppose? If you place enough constraints on the solution, you'll rule them all out.

There are some fairly unobtrusive, plain-vanilla box looking things meant for outdoor use if appearance is a big issue. Use a wifi analyzer on laptop or smartphone and see how much signal strength you have. Move around the room. If you only need another 10 dB or so to get into the -45 dB region, then a directional patch antenna is a possibility. But ultimately the wired solution will provide the best results.

Good luck

 

[stevech]

if you don't mind the slow speeds of 802.11b, it will provide much better range than 11g. Because it uses the same 20MHz channel as 11g/n, but strives for a lower data rate (yield), and does not use OFDM (11g/n) which causes a 5dB or more reduction in RMS transmitted power (due to the linearity demands of 11g/n that doesn't exist in 11b)

Some WiFi routers have a setting for a given SSID to be "11b only", or you can config the client to be 11b mode only

 

[tipstir]

Why use the slow 11b. Gee wez, there are other routers out their, but what's the budget your working with? There EAP-9550 for larger rooms like Gyms and such. That would run $100 bucks which also looks like the TEW-653AP

http://www.trendnet.com/image/products/diagram/di_TEW-653AP_1.gif

More of how that works here:
http://www.airgain.com/pdfs/MaxBeam40N.pdf

For 802.11g only
EnGenius 600mW EAP-3660 Same design as above, but only has 600mW and 802.11g

 

[stevech]

Why use the slow 11b. Gee wez, there are other routers out their, but what's the budget your working with? There EAP-9550 for larger rooms like Gyms and such. That would run $100 bucks which also looks like the TEW-653AP

http://www.trendnet.com/image/products/diagram/di_TEW-653AP_1.gif

More of how that works here:
http://www.airgain.com/pdfs/MaxBeam40N.pdf

For 802.11g only
EnGenius 600mW EAP-3660 Same design as above, but only has 600mW and 802.11g

Tipstr - You promote high power routers. Since the client PCs have far less, power don't you agree that this imbalance is a disadvantage? Technically speaking, the client and router must be at the same data rate in 802.11a/b/g and most 11n. Therefore, the client's transmitter power is the constraint, i.e., the "weakest link". If commonplace WiFi routers displayed the signal strength FROM the clients, this would be apparent.

 

[tipstir]

Tipstr - You promote high power routers. Since the client PCs have far less, power don't you agree that this imbalance is a disadvantage? Technically speaking, the client and router must be at the same data rate in 802.11a/b/g and most 11n. Therefore, the client's transmitter power is the constraint, i.e., the "weakest link". If commonplace WiFi routers displayed the signal strength FROM the clients, this would be apparent.

High price routers?

Listen! I tell them the ESR9850 will do the job P2P highest listed below, wireless signal very good, routing from LAN to LAN to WAN to LAN good to very good. High price one suffer from P2P MSC lower, but the WNPU is higher, double RAM much better routing speeds. You can't stop anyone from buying what they want to buy. 802.11n going to be different as soon as these N450 hit the online vendors. Max S Connections going to be much higher than the above routers are right now! So those P2P fans would enjoy that feature. Wireless don't know I haven't tested that out yet. For the bang and the buck the ESR9850 very cheap and does the job. It's consider a basic SOHO Wireless N/Gig Router. No USB and it's the only one listed below that doesn't offer it.

FCC allows 50mW to 1 watt so they all should be that at default. The ones listed below two of them are only in the mid 40's for mW one is 60mW and another one is 50mW. They all do TX: 150mbps / RX: 300mbps. The new crop is TX: 450mbps / RX: 450mbps. I still feel it's going to be TX: 225mbps / RX: 225mbps since the way the industry goes with wireless gear ratings. As 10GB Router only 6GB. When comes to wireless it's always a different story.

High Power Single Band / Low Price
ESR9850 (this one is the lowest one of the bunch) (MSC=19,721)
WR1043ND (ten bucks more that ESR9850) (MSC=5,000)

High Power Dual Band / High Price
E3000 (MSC=12,277)
WNDR3700 (MSC= 4,000)
TEW673GRU (MSC= 4,000)

 

[stevech]

"Price" - not the discussion.

Discussion is High Power (RF dBm) - where if router has much, much more than does client, an imprudent imbalance exists. Analogy: Rock Band's PA system versus audience member trying to talk back.

 

[tipstir]

"Price" - not the discussion.

Discussion is High Power (RF dBm) - where if router has much, much more than does client, an imprudent imbalance exists. Analogy: Rock Band's PA system versus audience member trying to talk back.

How do you determine the methodology of RF dBm how do you interrupt it for each router discussed above? Each router not going to function the same way in wireless? SNB charts show you that already? Some have hardware that might have been tweaked by the manufacturer along with the supporting firmware.

First mW of each router is going to be different like I had told you they are not all the same.

Min of 50mW going to give you a better RF (dBm) then one that can only do 42mW. Example the power of ESR9850 is 50mW as the power of the ESR9855G is 100mW which would provide better RF (dBm)? But here is the cheat of this example would the 50mW be enough for the average size home or a 3 room apartment? This depends on the EMI/EMF in the surround areas of the home and outside it.

 

[stevech]

How do you determine the methodology of RF dBm how do you interrupt it for each router discussed above? Each router not going to function the same way in wireless? SNB charts show you that already? Some have hardware that might have been tweaked by the manufacturer along with the supporting firmware.

First mW of each router is going to be different like I had told you they are not all the same.

Min of 50mW going to give you a better RF (dBm) then one that can only do 42mW. Example the power of ESR9850 is 50mW as the power of the ESR9855G is 100mW which would provide better RF (dBm)? But here is the cheat of this example would the 50mW be enough for the average size home or a 3 room apartment? This depends on the EMI/EMF in the surround areas of the home and outside it.

Tipster, when talking RF, and 802.11, the on-the-air signal is IDENTICAL in characteristics no matter what brand of WiFi device produced that signal, for some form of 802.11. That's what the standard "IEEE 802.11" is all about. This is for interoperable products. The terms EMI/EMF are not proper. In all RF systems there are interfering signals to some extent. The measure of this is called the ratio of signal to interference plus noise, or SINR. (there are other terms used). Ignoring interference, we have the signal to noise ratio, or SNR. In WiFi, and other wireless data systems, the achievable air link bit rate is limited by the SNR. And SINR. (simplified).

So at some SNR, in WiFi, one can achieve some bit rate on the air link. In 11g, that can be 54Mbps when receiving a signal from some sending device. But hear this: in 802.11a/b/g and most 11n, the transmission direction (to or from the router) with the poorest SNR determines the air link data rate. So a weak-signal client is the constraint, even if the wireless router has a far stronger signal. So a million watt WiFi router won't correct the disadvantage that a WiFi client at at 30-60mW (typical) has.

Let's reiterate: If a WiFi router transmits 60mW in some mode of 802.11 (it varies widely by mode for EVERY brand), and the WiFi client device produces 20mW, there is an imbalance of 40mW. We are using engineering units of 1/1000 Watt, or mW. Another common unit is decibels relative to one mW, or dBm. So 0dBm = 1mW, and 10dBm = 10mW, and 20dBm = 40mW (log scale).

You still don't seem to get my point: If the client WiFi device produces a lot less RF power than the WiFi router, there's a link imbalance. In 802.11, for any specific air link data rate, a certain signal strength (sans noise and interference) is needed. Just like your ear can hear only sounds greater than some level. If you speak much more loudly than the person you are speaking to, then increase the distance until he can just barely hear you, then you cannot hear his weaker voice. Truly, all the WiFi chipsets have about the same receiver sensitivity. It's because of the 802.11 signal standards. What does help is better antennas - as does a megaphone held to your ear for the sound analogy.

Tipstr, I know you don't want to be an RF engineer, but really, you need to read a bit about the basics before pontificating so much.

 

[tipstir]

Tipster, when talking RF, and 802.11, the on-the-air signal is IDENTICAL in characteristics no matter what brand of WiFi device produced that signal, for some form of 802.11. That's what the standard "IEEE 802.11" is all about. This is for interoperable products. The terms EMI/EMF are not proper. In all RF systems there are interfering signals to some extent. The measure of this is called the ratio of signal to interference plus noise, or SINR. (there are other terms used). Ignoring interference, we have the signal to noise ratio, or SNR. In WiFi, and other wireless data systems, the achievable air link bit rate is limited by the SNR. And SINR. (simplified).

So at some SNR, in WiFi, one can achieve some bit rate on the air link. In 11g, that can be 54Mbps when receiving a signal from some sending device. But hear this: in 802.11a/b/g and most 11n, the transmission direction (to or from the router) with the poorest SNR determines the air link data rate. So a weak-signal client is the constraint, even if the wireless router has a far stronger signal. So a million watt WiFi router won't correct the disadvantage that a WiFi client at at 30-60mW (typical) has.

Let's reiterate: If a WiFi router transmits 60mW in some mode of 802.11 (it varies widely by mode for EVERY brand), and the WiFi client device produces 20mW, there is an imbalance of 40mW. We are using engineering units of 1/1000 Watt, or mW. Another common unit is decibels relative to one mW, or dBm. So 0dBm = 1mW, and 10dBm = 10mW, and 20dBm = 40mW (log scale).

You still don't seem to get my point: If the client WiFi device produces a lot less RF power than the WiFi router, there's a link imbalance. In 802.11, for any specific air link data rate, a certain signal strength (sans noise and interference) is needed. Just like your ear can hear only sounds greater than some level. If you speak much more loudly than the person you are speaking to, then increase the distance until he can just barely hear you, then you cannot hear his weaker voice. Truly, all the WiFi chipsets have about the same receiver sensitivity. It's because of the 802.11 signal standards. What does help is better antennas - as does a megaphone held to your ear for the sound analogy.

Tipstr, I know you don't want to be an RF engineer, but really, you need to read a bit about the basics before pontificating so much.

Stevech, just getting to much in-depth here for the average user who just wants to know what is the best router to buy. I think you and I need to take this over the DSL where guys like us can talk about this at a greater length. To explain what the dBm means and how it is to relationship with mW. Bulls-eye (0dBm) would be the strongest signal at 100%. What software are you using for wi-fi spectrum analyzing like tools from airmagnet have you ever use these tools? Use this at my clients sites well the enterprise version for Cisco Aironet wireless access points.

 

[thiggins]

Stevech, just getting to much in-depth here for the average user who just wants to know what is the best router to buy. I think you and I need to take this over the DSL where guys like us can talk about this at a greater length.

Hey, Tipstir. So you think the audience here is a bunch of dummies?

 

[lifespeed]

We are using engineering units of 1/1000 Watt, or mW. Another common unit is decibels relative to one mW, or dBm. So 0dBm = 1mW, and 10dBm = 10mW, and 20dBm = 40mW (log scale).

20 dBm = 100 mW, 30 dBm = 1W.

Absolutely correct that access point power far in excess of the client does not help. Good antennae are very worthwhile, however.

All that the extra AP power will do for you is ensure the transmission from the AP is not a limiting factor. There can be a modest benefit from this, you are limited only by the client, rather than having to get two "weak" signals to work.

 

[tipstir]

Hey, Tipstir. So you think the audience here is a bunch of dummies?

(Don't know if you're making a joke?) But no the audience is not that! I never said that! Just keep it simple as you know like you do here. Why confuse them with all this technical grab that he's shooting off with? Well everyone going to say different. I am just saying..



The Router Box should read:
Specs:

How much RAM?
How fast is the WNPU?
How much TX power in mW?
How rating is dBi for ANT?
How much is the MSC?
Actual rated Speed in Mbps?

Note: Your speed will vary in actual rated speed mention in Mbps.
Router makers report it like TX 20dBm x 3x (ANT) 3dbi = 60mW

Wireless Adapter that can get 256mW compared to 100mW adapter is about -20dBm more than the 256mW adapter where the it would be less.
Example Buffalo High Power 802.11g will show: -35dBm were as Trendnet 802.11n TEW-641PC will show -55dBm under Passmark Wireless Mon 3.x

 

[thiggins]

(Don't know if you're making a joke?) But no the audience is not that! I never said that! Just keep it simple as you know like you do here. Why confuse them with all this technical grab that he's shooting off with?

Nope. Not a joke.

SmallNetBuilder serves a wide audience from networking newbies to technical experts.

Please don't insult the intelligence of SmallNetbuilder community members by assuming that they want things dumbed down or directing them to other sites to have more technical discussions. Those discussions are welcome, and occur frequently, right here.

SNB's mission is help people become more educated consumers of networking products. Clearly explaining technology principles is a key part of that education. That is what Stevech was trying to do.

 

[stevech]

Absolutely correct that access point power far in excess of the client does not help. Good antennae are very worthwhile, however.

All that the extra AP power will do for you is ensure the transmission from the AP is not a limiting factor. There can be a modest benefit from this, you are limited only by the client, rather than having to get two "weak" signals to work.

Above, from another - Maybe Tipstr will open his ears to someone else. So far, he's an output-only fellow.

PS: What is "MSC"? Not a measurement I've heard elsewhere.

 

[thiggins]

What is "MSC"? Not a measurement I've heard elsewhere.

Maximum Simultaneous Connections (Sessions). It's one of our Router tests.