Advertised claims for "multi-polarized" antenna

This antenna claims to be better for picking up signals around
obstructions. Any truth to this? Cf Multi-polarized antennas.

http://www.whotspot.com/p_wifi.htm

sounds a little bogus to me?

edward wrote:

> This antenna claims to be better for picking up signals around
> obstructions. Any truth to this? Cf Multi-polarized antennas.
>
> http://www.whotspot.com/p_wifi.htm
>
> sounds a little bogus to me?

Greater tree penetration?

It's bullshit.

--

Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, Jeff
Liebermann chose the tried and tested strategy of:

> If you split your RF
> power into multiple polarizations at the access point, but your client
> radio only has a simple antenna that can use only one polarization
> (vertical, horizontal, right-hand circular, or left-hand circular),
> you have lost most of your power into useless polarizations.

Does this apply even if you have multiple clients with differing
polarisations? I assume you're making a distinction between splitting a
single RF feed into multiple polarisations, and connecting a differently
polarised antenna to a diversity connector.

> By
> splitting the signal into multiple polarizations, one would think that
> the client end would work better because at least one of these
> multiple polarizations might be usable. However, that's not what
> happens. Instead, multiple polarizations simply create more
> opportunities for more reflections.

Yes, that's what I would have assumed. So, the extra paths the signal takes
outweighs having the correct polarisation?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
10:24:33 up 11 days, 14:56, 5 users, load average: 0.01, 1.09, 1.17
"I am utterly appalled at how I have been treated like a criminal"
-- Andrew Crossley, ACS:Law, 13 August 2010