Antenna from 2.4mhz coreless phone for wireless

Just curious that has anyone try with a 2.4MHZ coreless phone antenna
to enhance the wireless 11b AP's signal ?, since there are few posting
mentioned that these phones(at least some) are within the range as
wireless gear, and their signal is much greater than normal wireless
gear as well.

Has anyone ever try that simplly replace the wireless antenna with a
coreless phone's antenna ?

| Just curious that has anyone try with a 2.4MHZ coreless phone antenna
| to enhance the wireless 11b AP's signal ?, since there are few posting
| mentioned that these phones(at least some) are within the range as
| wireless gear, and their signal is much greater than normal wireless
| gear as well.
|
| Has anyone ever try that simplly replace the wireless antenna with a
| coreless phone's antenna ?

Not much personal experience with adopting to WiFi equipment but
transferring from one cordless phone to the other invariable results in far
less performance. I expect the spacific antenna are matched to the specific
phones.

"Nice4" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Just curious that has anyone try with a 2.4MHZ coreless phone antenna
> to enhance the wireless 11b AP's signal ?, since there are few posting
> mentioned that these phones(at least some) are within the range as
> wireless gear, and their signal is much greater than normal wireless
> gear as well.
>
> Has anyone ever try that simplly replace the wireless antenna with a
> coreless phone's antenna ?

Most all commercial devices (whether wireless networking or cordless phones)
use a 50 ohm antenna impedance and you're correct that both operate in the
same frequency range. If you're assuming that cordless phones have better
antennas because you get more range, then your assumption is untrue.
Cordless phones operate in a much narrower bandwidth.

If there is a problem with your wireless networking setup, then it's best to
determine the cause of the problem instead of trying to rig a cordless phone
antenna to your wireless networking device. If the antenna you have is not
suitable for your application, there may be a more suitable antenna for you.
If you need to "enhance the wireless 11b AP's signal" in just one direction,
Michael Erskine's reflector designs should be your first choice:
http://www.freeantennas.com/

Don W.

"Don W." <dNOSPAMwiddersAThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zRycnbX8aJdVp-uiXTWc-(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Nice4" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> > Just curious that has anyone try with a 2.4MHZ coreless
> > phone antenna to enhance the wireless 11b AP's signal ?,
> > since there are few posting mentioned that these phones
> > (at least some) are within the range as wireless gear, and
> > their signal is much greater than normal wireless gear as
> > well.
> >
> > Has anyone ever try that simplly replace the wireless
> > antenna with a coreless phone's antenna ?
>
> Most all commercial devices (whether wireless networking
> or cordless phones) use a 50 ohm antenna impedance and
> you're correct that both operate in the same frequency range.
> If you're assuming that cordless phones have better antennas
> because you get more range, then your assumption is untrue.
> Cordless phones operate in a much narrower bandwidth.
>
> If there is a problem with your wireless networking setup,
> then it's best to determine the cause of the problem instead
> of trying to rig a cordless phone antenna to your wireless
> networking device. If the antenna you have is not suitable
> for your application, there may be a more suitable antenna
> for you. If you need to "enhance the wireless 11b AP's signal"
> in just one direction, Michael Erskine's reflector designs
> should be your first choice:
> http://www.freeantennas.com/
>
> Don W.
>

Two points should be stressed regarding the application of cordless phone
antennas to wireless networking devices:

1. While this should work OK in theory, in practice it likely will fall far
short of your expectations because maintaining the 50 ohm impedance through
whatever means you choose to connect the one to the other is extremely
critical and almost impossible.

2. More than likely both antennas are of identical design. They're probably
both coaxial dipole antennas cut somewhere between 2.4 and 2.5 GHz. So even
if you can somehow adapt the cordless phone antenna to connect to the
wireless networking device without destroying the antenna performance in the
DIY connection, there would be no improvement in performance.

Don W.

> Two points should be stressed regarding the application of cordless phone
> antennas to wireless networking devices:
>

A third point that you have forgot to mention is the famous "grasping at
straws" syndrome.


> 1. While this should work OK in theory, in practice it likely will fall
far
> short of your expectations because maintaining the 50 ohm impedance
through
> whatever means you choose to connect the one to the other is extremely
> critical and almost impossible.



Why? You mean to tell me that he couldn't change an SMT capacitor to bring
the impedance into tolerance? Do you think that every manufacturer of cheap
consumer items even uses such stringent manufacturing techniques that they
even care about a 50 ohm match? We're not talking about MIL spec here.


>
> 2. More than likely both antennas are of identical design. They're
probably
> both coaxial dipole antennas cut somewhere between 2.4 and 2.5 GHz. So
even
> if you can somehow adapt the cordless phone antenna to connect to the
> wireless networking device without destroying the antenna performance in
the
> DIY connection, there would be no improvement in performance.
>

And you are absolutely sure about this and have documented proof to back up
this assertion? You have tested your theory in a laboratory setting with
all the different antennas, phones, and APs ever made? It's like saying my
cell site came with Andrew antennas and I can't change them to Decibel
Products if I want to. Very vague and open ended your answer is. We need
finites if we want to truly answer this question.



Rita

"Rita A. Berkowitz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > 1. While this should work OK in theory, in practice it likely
> > will fall far short of your expectations because maintaining
> > the 50 ohm impedance through whatever means you choose
> > to connect the one to the other is extremely critical and almost
> > impossible.
>
> Why? You mean to tell me that he couldn't change an SMT capacitor
> to bring the impedance into tolerance?

I didn't mean to tell YOU anything, and that's not even close to what I
meant or what I wrote. Maintaining the 50 ohm impedance through home-brew
connections at 2.4GHz is critical and difficult. Changing an SMT capacitor
has no bearing on maintaining the 50 ohm impedance through a home-brew
connection. I already stated that both devices and both antennas are likely
50 ohms. If the resistive component of the impedance was 50 ohms, but with
some reactive component, it might be possible to 'tune out' the reactive
component by changing the value of a capacitor. If the resistive component
of the impedance is not 50 ohms, then changing the value of a capacitor will
not "bring the impedance into tolerance".

> Do you think that every manufacturer of cheap
> consumer items even uses such stringent manufacturing techniques
> that they even care about a 50 ohm match? We're not talking about
> MIL spec here.
>

It doesn't matter what I think or what 'spec' you're talking about. There
are only a handful of 2.4GHz radio chip manufacturers and they all conform
to a 50 ohm antenna impedance. It's not difficult or expensive to design a
coaxial dipole to match the impedance of the radio chip. Yes, I think every
manufacturer of cheap phones and cheap wireless networking devices cares
about a 50 ohm match just as they care the supply voltage meets the
requirements of the components they use. These devices are designed by
design engineers, not ebay sellers.

>
> >
> > 2. More than likely both antennas are of identical design. They're
> > probably both coaxial dipole antennas cut somewhere between 2.4
> > and 2.5 GHz. So even if you can somehow adapt the cordless phone
> > antenna to connect to the wireless networking device without
> > destroying the antenna performance in the DIY connection, there
> > would be no improvement in performance.
> >
>
> And you are absolutely sure about this and have documented proof to back
up
> this assertion?

I could point you to some PDFs for radio chips. Would that satisfy you?

> You have tested your theory in a laboratory setting with
> all the different antennas, phones, and APs ever made?
> It's like saying my cell site came with Andrew antennas and I can't
> change them to Decibel Products if I want to. Very vague and open
> ended your answer is. We need finites if we want to truly answer
> this question.
>
> Rita
>


Careful, Rita, your ignorance is showing.

Don W.

In article <hPScnWSiXcNunOqiXTWc-(E-Mail Removed)>, "Don W."
<dNOSPAMwiddersAThotmail.com> says...

> Careful, Rita, your ignorance is showing.
>
> Don W.

Don - You are doing it again!
Wasting your time on the totally clueless.

"John S" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
> In article <hPScnWSiXcNunOqiXTWc-(E-Mail Removed)>, "Don W."
> <dNOSPAMwiddersAThotmail.com> says...
>
> > Careful, Rita, your ignorance is showing.
> >
> > Don W.
>
> Don - You are doing it again!
> Wasting your time on the totally clueless.

*whack* -- thanks, I needed that!

Don W.