DIY WiFi antenna (to increase reception)

  • Thread starter Thread starter gaikokujinkyofusho
  • Start date Start date
G

gaikokujinkyofusho

Hi, I kinda new to wireless networking but wanted to find out if it was
possible to make an antenna that increases the range of signals my
notebook can receive. I have looked around and most antennas that I
have seen are for increasing the range of a network (the sending of the
signals?) not necessarily for reception... or if it works for
transmission would it also work for reception? Is it possible to build
(or buy on the cheap) some sort of omni-directional antenna that will
allow me to receive signals that are far away? Any help would be
greatly appreciated!

Cheers

-Gaiko
 
Hi, I kinda new to wireless networking but wanted to find out if it was
possible to make an antenna that increases the range of signals my
notebook can receive. I have looked around and most antennas that I
have seen are for increasing the range of a network (the sending of the
signals?) not necessarily for reception... or if it works for
transmission would it also work for reception? Is it possible to build
(or buy on the cheap) some sort of omni-directional antenna that will
allow me to receive signals that are far away? Any help would be
greatly appreciated!

Cheers

-Gaiko

Construct a metal parabola with a focal point that is
1/2 * (C/2.4 Ghz) ...( about 2.27 inches) from the
surface of the parabola. Then place your antenna at the
focal point, and point the parabola at the transmitter :-)

You can also construct similar antennas for cell phones....

Enjoy,
Postmaster
 
Hi, I kinda new to wireless networking but wanted to find out if it was
possible to make an antenna that increases the range of signals my
notebook can receive. I have looked around and most antennas that I
have seen are for increasing the range of a network (the sending of the
signals?) not necessarily for reception... or if it works for
transmission would it also work for reception?

Yes, it is reciprocal, and any improvement in transmission will be
identical to the improvement for reception.

(Note that increasing the transmit power of an Access Point might
be possible too, but has exactly the effect you are concerned with,
because it has value in one direction only.)
Is it possible to build
(or buy on the cheap) some sort of omni-directional antenna that will
allow me to receive signals that are far away? Any help would be
greatly appreciated!

Definitely! Just be warned that high gain omni-directional
antennas are not simple, and not inexpensive.

Let me provide a few technical details that you need in order to
understand what you'll be looking at.

First, antennas are measured in numbers called "dBi", which is a
logarithmic ratio. The 'd' for deci, or 1/10th. the 'B' is for
Bell, the name of the guy who came up with it. You'll see all
kinds of dB ratios used in radio work. As just dB, it's a
ratio. With a letter after it, it's a ratio compared to
something specific. The 'i' stands for a point source antenna
in outer space, called an "isotropic radiator". It's a truly
omni-directional antenna, and no such thing exists in reality.
This (imaginary) isotropic radiator as 0 dBi gain.

What you'll see called "omni" antennas are omni-directional
around the points of a compass (azimuth), but not vertically.
That's good, because you don't want to waste your radio's power
by transmitting it directly up, or directly down. Instead, that
power is redirected perpendicular to the antenna, which gives it
gain in those directions.

Because of that, a plain old every day omni antenna has a gain
of about 2 dBi. And everything else you see, you will want to
compare to that. The comparison is that a 6 dB increase in
signal strength (3 dB is twice as much power, because dB's are
logarithmic, so 6 dB is 4 times as much power) will just about
double the range of a radio link. Hence if you can walk down
the road 300 feet before you lose your connection, if you switch
from a 2 dBi antenna to an 8 dBi antenna you would probably be
able to go about 600 feet before losing the connection.

You can buy 7 dBi (almost a 6 dB increase) antennas for something
like $40 or so. More gain than that in an omni requires some
significant hardware, and will cost relatively more.

"Directional antennas", where that means directional in azimuth
instead of only in elevation, are much easier to get a lot of
gain from, and hence are less expensive (but don't do you much
good either).

There are other considerations too. The higher the antenna, the
farther it's view will be. Also the fewer obstructions, the
better. It happens that 802.11b/g wireless uses 2400MHz, and
at that frequency almost *anything* absorbs radio signals. Trees,
walls, and basically anything you can't see through. So locate
your Access Point accordingly!
 
Hi, I kinda new to wireless networking but wanted to find out if it was
possible to make an antenna that increases the range of signals my
notebook can receive. I have looked around and most antennas that I
have seen are for increasing the range of a network (the sending of the
signals?) not necessarily for reception... or if it works for
transmission would it also work for reception? Is it possible to build
(or buy on the cheap) some sort of omni-directional antenna that will
allow me to receive signals that are far away? Any help would be
greatly appreciated!

Cheers

-Gaiko

A few more details:

You'll need a 9 inch piece of cardboard,
and some aluminum foil. Then create a parabola
See:
http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/physique/perso/gtulloue/conics/drawing/para_string.html

Be sure that the focal point is ~ 2.267 inches from the nearest
point on the parabola. Now cover your cardboard with the foil,
and bend into the parabola that you just drew. Put the wireless
antenna at 'F' ( the focal point ) and point this at the nearest
access point. You got it...

Note: You can create two parabola shapes out of a piece
of cardboard, and bend the aluminum foil/cardboard around
these two pieces. Then glue, to hold it in place.

Nothing like a bit of math and a homebrew project to add
fun to computing :-)


Enjoy,
Postmaster
 
What you'll see called "omni" antennas are omni-directional
around the points of a compass (azimuth), but not vertically.
That's good, because you don't want to waste your radio's power
by transmitting it directly up, or directly down. Instead, that
power is redirected perpendicular to the antenna, which gives it
gain in those directions.

This however also means that you cannot have it on a laptop which you then
operate on your lap--ie with the perpendicular of the antenna pointing
everywhich way. The antenna must be oriented so that the perp (axis) really
is perpendicular, or you will get less, rather than more gain. The higher
the gain the worst this is.
 
A few more details: [...]
Be sure that the focal point is ~ 2.267 inches from the nearest
point on the parabola. Now cover your cardboard with the foil,
and bend into the parabola that you just drew. Put the wireless
antenna at 'F' ( the focal point ) and point this at the nearest
access point. You got it...

You should look up the definition of "omni-directional".
 
Unruh said:
This however also means that you cannot have it on a laptop which you then
operate on your lap--ie with the perpendicular of the antenna pointing
everywhich way. The antenna must be oriented so that the perp (axis) really
is perpendicular, or you will get less, rather than more gain. The higher
the gain the worst this is.

True, but even *worse* than you are saying!

2.4GHz RF will bounce off any metal object larger than about 3"
square, hence there are bound to be lots of reflected signals in
almost any environment. In some cases one of those reflected
signals is likely to be the strongest signal. Because it is
reflected, it no longer necessarily has vertical polarization,
and might just be almost anything.

If you put the laptop in your lap, and tilt one way... you may
get an increase in signal, but tilting in some other direction
may get an even deeper fade than just having it sitting straight
a level. And of source in many laptops the antenna is in the
lid, which isn't necessarily straight up and down either!

What it all boils down to is that having a good line of sight
location only a short distance from the Access Point is best,
and for anything else a little experimentation with orientation
might do wonders if there is a marginal connection.
 
ynotssor said:
A few more details: [...]
Be sure that the focal point is ~ 2.267 inches from the nearest
point on the parabola. Now cover your cardboard with the foil,
and bend into the parabola that you just drew. Put the wireless
antenna at 'F' ( the focal point ) and point this at the nearest
access point. You got it...

You should look up the definition of "omni-directional".

One may find that a directional antenna, pointed at the
access point, can greatly improve range. If the antenna
is lite, and easily turned, one can quickly find the access
point and be a happy camper :-) The method above
increases the range by a rather significant distance....
In some cases, around 1/2 mile !

Enjoy,
Postmaster.
 
Hi, I kinda new to wireless networking but wanted to find out if it was
possible to make an antenna that increases the range of signals my
notebook can receive. I have looked around and most antennas that I
have seen are for increasing the range of a network (the sending of the
signals?) not necessarily for reception... or if it works for
transmission would it also work for reception? Is it possible to build
(or buy on the cheap) some sort of omni-directional antenna that will
allow me to receive signals that are far away? Any help would be
greatly appreciated!

With very few exceptions, antennas work equally well for transmission and
reception. Now what you're looking for is gain, which involves tradeoffs.
You get more signal in one direction, only by reducing it in others. With
a standard vertical antenna, you'll have a donut shaped pattern. With an
omnidirectional gain antenna, you'll have a squashed donut, where range is
extended at the expense of signal at higher angles. You can also get
directional antennas, with more gain. However, the more gain, the more
complex (read expensive) the antenna becomes. There are commercial antenna
available and you can roll your own as well. But no matter how you obtain
an external antenna, you'll need some method to connect it. Does your wifi
adapter have a connector, that can be used for an external antenna?
 
Postmaster said:
One may find that a directional antenna, pointed at the
access point, can greatly improve range. If the antenna

The OP has a laptop, with a builtin wifi client. He could go to
a lot of trouble to figure out how to get an external antenna to
work, and it would no doubt cost a wee bit too.

But tell me, is he really going to pack a parabolic around and
set it up everywhere he wants to use the lap top from? I doubt
it.

Perhaps, the appropriate discussion is about what he can do with
high gain omni-directional antennas for the AP.
is lite, and easily turned, one can quickly find the access
point and be a happy camper :-) The method above
increases the range by a rather significant distance....
In some cases, around 1/2 mile !

And indeed, there is some remote chance that he would be
interested in doing it that way. But you need to point out the
detractions too, such as needing to buy another wifi client and
get one with a connector for an external antenna.
 
Hi, I kinda new to wireless networking but wanted to find out if it was
possible to make an antenna that increases the range of signals my
notebook can receive. I have looked around and most antennas that I
have seen are for increasing the range of a network (the sending of the
signals?) not necessarily for reception... or if it works for
transmission would it also work for reception? Is it possible to build
(or buy on the cheap) some sort of omni-directional antenna that will
allow me to receive signals that are far away? Any help would be
greatly appreciated!

Cheers

-Gaiko

It is in the nature of antennas that changes for the better or worse produce
the same effects on reception and transmission.
 
The OP has a laptop, with a builtin wifi client. He could go to
a lot of trouble to figure out how to get an external antenna to
work, and it would no doubt cost a wee bit too.
But tell me, is he really going to pack a parabolic around and
set it up everywhere he wants to use the lap top from? I doubt
it.
Perhaps, the appropriate discussion is about what he can do with
high gain omni-directional antennas for the AP.

On a laptop, a high gain omni would not be terribly useful. The antenna
would have to be very accurately mounted (re the vertical direction) and
laptops never are. It would in fact be easier for him to pack around a
parabolic and aim it when he wants to use it.


And indeed, there is some remote chance that he would be
interested in doing it that way. But you need to point out the
detractions too, such as needing to buy another wifi client and
get one with a connector for an external antenna.
Very true.
 
Unruh said:
On a laptop, a high gain omni would not be terribly useful. The antenna
would have to be very accurately mounted (re the vertical direction) and
laptops never are. It would in fact be easier for him to pack around a
parabolic and aim it when he wants to use it.

Nobody suggested using a high gain omni on a laptop. But what you
say is certainly the reason nobody mentioned it.
 
Floyd said:
What it all boils down to is that having a good line of sight
location only a short distance from the Access Point is best,
and for anything else a little experimentation with orientation
might do wonders if there is a marginal connection.

This is absurdly pessimistic, in my experience.
I don't believe there should be any problem in using WiFi
in 99% or houses or apartments.
If there is, I would suggest trying a different AP or PCMCIA card.

I have a PCI-to-PCMCIA adaptor on my desktop
with a Lucent/Orinoco Gold PCMCIA card in it.
This has a separate antenna,
but I haven't found the orientation of the antenna makes much difference.
I can access the desktop from my laptop (also with an Orinoco gold card)
throughout a very large (4-storey) building
with some extremely thick (2 feet) walls.
 
Timothy Murphy said:
This is absurdly pessimistic, in my experience.

Lets look at it one part at a time, and follow the logic.

1) good line of sight at short distance is best

That's an *obvious* truth!

2) for anything else

Means that what follows does not apply for such wonderful
situations described in 1). It doesn't apply because if there is
only a short distance and there is perfect line of sight, it is
very unlikely that a reflection provides the major signal
component. Therefore the polarization is unlikely to be
changed. And even if it is, a 10-15 dB drop in signal probably
won't hurt, since the signal would have a 20-30 dB or more fade
margin anyway.

3) if there is a marginal connection

In other words, this part makes no difference if you have
a good connection.

4) experimenting with orientation might do wonders.

That is the only part left for your claim that it is absurd.
And of course 4) is not at all absurd, but is absolutely true.

Can you follow the logic when it is laid out one step at
a time?
I don't believe there should be any problem in using WiFi
in 99% or houses or apartments.

That is a meaningless statement. No problem doing *what*?
Connecting across the length of the living room? I agree.
Connecting through the exterior wall to the patio? I doubt
it comes close to 99%. Maybe 50-50. It depends on the position
of the windows and the composition of the walls. And flat
statement just are not useful.
If there is, I would suggest trying a different AP or PCMCIA card.

Which of course has *nothing* to do with whether signals
propagate or not, so that is not likely to be the correct
solution.
I have a PCI-to-PCMCIA adaptor on my desktop
with a Lucent/Orinoco Gold PCMCIA card in it.
This has a separate antenna,
but I haven't found the orientation of the antenna makes much difference.

If you make a valid test, you'll find that the null can be as
deep a 30+ dB. (Some applications *require* a null better than
30 dB!)

The reason you haven't found much difference is probably because
you are experimenting in an environment that has hugely
significant amounts of multi-path signals. That means no matter
how you orient the antenna, there is a signal relatively close
to that polarization. You won't see more than a few dB change.

A typical example of that would be a pci bus card in a tower
case with the antenna on the back. You simply can't escape all
of the reflections off the case itself. With your separate
antenna it depends on where you put it. If you happen to be in
a building that has aluminum foil backed insulation in the walls
(which is exceedingly common), you'll have a hard time finding
any polarization that is unworkable.

Regardless of that, if you want to see an example of just
exactly how significant cross-polarization nulls are... look at
virtually every microwave used by the telecommunications
industry and virtually every C band satellite system, and most X
band satellite systems other than those providing TV to
consumers. All of those cited use both horizontal and vertical
signals at the exact same frequency, with the antennas very
carefully set at 180 degree angles. Starband satellite Internet
service is a good example.
I can access the desktop from my laptop (also with an Orinoco gold card)
throughout a very large (4-storey) building
with some extremely thick (2 feet) walls.

So? As with another recent thread, you seem to think that a
single experience is indicative of what all experience will be.

However... in this case I have no doubt you are exaggerating
greatly. A large 4 story building with 2 foot thick walls?
2400MHz signals don't go through concrete, don't go through foil
back insulation, and don't go through plaster walls that use
wire mesh to support the plaster.

Your not being honest about this 4 story building.
 
So? As with another recent thread, you seem to think that a
single experience is indicative of what all experience will be.

My appologies to Timothy Murphy, I confused him with someone
else, and he doesn't deserve the implication of that statement.
My mistake, not his.
 
Floyd said:
Lets look at it one part at a time, and follow the logic.

1) good line of sight at short distance is best

This is like saying that phones are best
if the person you are talking to is in the same room.
True but ridiculous.
The reason you haven't found much difference is probably because
you are experimenting in an environment that has hugely
significant amounts of multi-path signals. That means no matter
how you orient the antenna, there is a signal relatively close
to that polarization. You won't see more than a few dB change.

I'm sure you are right -
you obviously know much more about the subject than me.
But in my opinion, anyone who has serious WiFi problems in a normal house
(or apartment) would do better to try different WiFi cards,
rather than trying to make antennae out of cardboard and tin foil.
So? As with another recent thread, you seem to think that a
single experience is indicative of what all experience will be.

I've used WiFi on my laptop in lots of places eg around my college.
I just took my house because it seemed to offer the greatest difficulty.
However... in this case I have no doubt you are exaggerating
greatly. A large 4 story building with 2 foot thick walls?
2400MHz signals don't go through concrete, don't go through foil
back insulation, and don't go through plaster walls that use
wire mesh to support the plaster.

Your not being honest about this 4 story building.

I'm in it now,
and it is exactly as I described.
It is an 1860 orphanage.
The reason why it has some very thick walls
is because the building was extended almost as soon as it was built,
and what were exterior walls became interior walls.
[I just checked, and the wall is more than 26 inches thick.]
These walls are granite, and the signal has to pass through this wall
(and 1 ceiling and 1 other thinner wall)
when I am in the bedroom, as I was when I wrote before.
Presently it only has to go through one (very substantial) ceiling.

I've seen colleagues with WiFi problems,
and it seems to me that these are nearly always due to the WiFi devices,
and not to the environment.

Incidentally, even Bluetooth is almost usable throughout this house,
though it won't go through the thick wall reliably.
 
Timothy Murphy said:
This is like saying that phones are best
if the person you are talking to is in the same room.
True but ridiculous.

Your statement explains why you can't seem to understand exactly
how it does work. Fundamentals are *not* ridiculous, they are
*required*.

I assume you have read Stan Goodman's article, and I'm not going
to repeat what he has stated so ably.
I'm sure you are right -
you obviously know much more about the subject than me.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, feel free to point out
that my words are confusing, and ask for a different
explanation. Tell me what you do understand, and how you
understand it, and I'll try to go from there and provide as good
a tutorial as I can. Skip the adversarial part of it, because
it isn't a contest, and if you make it one you can't win.
But in my opinion, anyone who has serious WiFi problems in a normal house
(or apartment) would do better to try different WiFi cards,

That is untrue. What value is there in spending money to buy
another equal product? All of these units have about the same
capabilities.
rather than trying to make antennae out of cardboard and tin foil.

If I had suggested that, you might have a point. I didn't, and
you don't. (And I might note that what you are suggesting is
far less likely to be effective than antennas from cardboard and
tin foil, which do happen to work.)
I'm in it now,
and it is exactly as I described.

Then you are not describing it well. That would be for the
simple reason that you don't know what makes a difference to
2400 MHz radio signals, and simply can't tell me what is
happening. Most people wouldn't, and have no reason to!
It is an 1860 orphanage.
The reason why it has some very thick walls
is because the building was extended almost as soon as it was built,
and what were exterior walls became interior walls.
[I just checked, and the wall is more than 26 inches thick.]
These walls are granite, and the signal has to pass through this wall

The signal does not necessarily have to pass through the wall.
It is probably reflecting off something above it and coming back
down on the other side.
(and 1 ceiling and 1 other thinner wall)
when I am in the bedroom, as I was when I wrote before.
Presently it only has to go through one (very substantial) ceiling.

A ceiling made from wood that has been in place for 140 years, getting
drier all the time, would not be much of a problem. That is assuming
nobody has stretched wire mesh across it to hold plaster, which would
be a serious block.
I've seen colleagues with WiFi problems,
and it seems to me that these are nearly always due to the WiFi devices,
and not to the environment.

Clearly *every* such setup has environmental problems. We all
expect there to be a limit to how far away we can go and still
connect, and you are just ignoring that because you know about
it. Someone who has a good background in radio signal
propagation will see significant things most people wouldn't
notice or suspect.
Incidentally, even Bluetooth is almost usable throughout this house,
though it won't go through the thick wall reliably.

I doubt that the 2400 MHz wifi signal is going through your wall
either, though I don't really know for sure, as granite walls
aren't something I have handy to test with. I'm sure that
concrete is bad, but that does have a lot of moisture in it that
granite would not have. Hence it is quite possible.

Regardless, just be glad you get the signal coverage you want
without having to do much to accomplish it. Often enough that
is not the case.
 
Floyd said:
Your statement explains why you can't seem to understand exactly
how it does work. Fundamentals are *not* ridiculous, they are
*required*.

The statement ([1] above) is not only ridiculous,
it would be seriously misleading to anyone not familiar with WiFi.
If you don't understand what I'm saying, feel free to point out
that my words are confusing, and ask for a different
explanation.

I understand what you are saying.
I'm just saying that it does not correspond to my experience.
That is untrue. What value is there in spending money to buy
another equal product? All of these units have about the same
capabilities.

That just isn't true, in my experience.
Eg I have a Sony WiFi card which does not work as well as my Orinoco cards.
[It also needs a different driver.]

Different APs in my college seem to have vastly different ranges.

The Orinoco PCI-to-PCMCIA card on my desktop has an external aerial,
and if this is removed the transmission is greatly weakened;
so all units do _not_ have "about the same capabilities".

A colleague in work had problems with the built-in WiFi in his laptop.
I put in my Orinoco card, and it worked perfectly.
Then you are not describing it well. That would be for the
simple reason that you don't know what makes a difference to
2400 MHz radio signals, and simply can't tell me what is
happening. Most people wouldn't, and have no reason to!

I don't need to know anything in order to describe what happens.
Maybe you would be better off if you didn't know so much about 2.4GHz waves,
and experimented a bit more.
It is an 1860 orphanage.
The reason why it has some very thick walls
is because the building was extended almost as soon as it was built,
and what were exterior walls became interior walls.
[I just checked, and the wall is more than 26 inches thick.]
These walls are granite, and the signal has to pass through this wall

The signal does not necessarily have to pass through the wall.
It is probably reflecting off something above it and coming back
down on the other side.

That's not possible in this case;
the wall goes from ground to roof,
and the roofs on the different sides of the wall are different.
Anyway the signal would have to go a vast distance
if it had to go up to the roof and back again.

There are doorways in the wall;
but it would have to go along a very strange path to get through them,
Regardless, just be glad you get the signal coverage you want
without having to do much to accomplish it. Often enough that
is not the case.

You haven't convinced me.
I still believe that WiFi should work perfectly in any normal dwelling;
and if it doesn't then you should try alternative devices
before calling in the 2.4GHz experts.

I might mention that my WiFi is too good!
There is a firm (Intermec) in the same building
which specialises in WiFi.
This is separated from my part of the building by a concrete fire-wall,
again from ground to roof.
I was told the other day that they can pick up my WiFi loud and clear,
and could connect to the web through my desktop.
[For various reasons I wasn't using WEP at the time.]
 
Timothy Murphy said:
Floyd said:
Your statement explains why you can't seem to understand exactly
how it does work. Fundamentals are *not* ridiculous, they are
*required*.

The statement ([1] above) is not only ridiculous,
it would be seriously misleading to anyone not familiar with WiFi.

That is the opinion of a person who admits to a serious lack of
knowledge of the topic. I fail to see why you want to make
a fool of yourself.

Your entire article is filled with contradictions and foolishness,
such as this comment:
I don't need to know anything in order to describe what happens.

And technical fallacy, such as this:
Anyway the signal would have to go a vast distance
if it had to go up to the roof and back again.

(There is no point in further discussion...)
 
Back
Top