Cisco Triband or Senao Wireless G PC Card

I am in the market for a new wireless PC card for my laptop. My trusty old
Orinoco Gold has worked great, but I need a little more range due to
increased radio interference in my area. So I am looking at some of the
higher output cards.

A lot of people like the Ciscos (100mW), while others like the Senaos
(200mW). My Orinoco does a decent job at 30mW, so I don't need a ton of
extra power. The good thing is that the Ciscos are now competitively priced
(can get the triband for under $80 shipped), so the only real issue is
performance. For now, I will be keeping my SMC2655W 802.11b access point
(although this will likely be upgraded to a Senao later), so the immediate
focus is on the card (I'd rather deal with antenna issues only if the PC
card upgrade option fails).

So, Cisco or Senao. Any thoughts? (I've seen comparisons of these
manufacturers, but mostly for the 802.11b products).

Thanks.

DCWhitty

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:41:12 GMT, "DCWhitty" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I am in the market for a new wireless PC card for my laptop. My trusty old
>Orinoco Gold has worked great, but I need a little more range due to
>increased radio interference in my area. So I am looking at some of the
>higher output cards.

Ahem. More power is not a great solution for interfence. All you'll
be doing with your higher power transmitter is creating more
interference for someone elses receiver. Meanwhile, your receiver
will still hear the same amount of interference it heard with the
Orinoco card. What will you do when everyone is running high power
xmitters? The real solution to interference it to adjust the antenna
patterns, location, or gain to avoid the sources of interference.

>A lot of people like the Ciscos (100mW), while others like the Senaos
>(200mW). My Orinoco does a decent job at 30mW, so I don't need a ton of
>extra power. The good thing is that the Ciscos are now competitively priced
>(can get the triband for under $80 shipped), so the only real issue is
>performance. For now, I will be keeping my SMC2655W 802.11b access point
>(although this will likely be upgraded to a Senao later), so the immediate
>focus is on the card (I'd rather deal with antenna issues only if the PC
>card upgrade option fails).
>
>So, Cisco or Senao. Any thoughts? (I've seen comparisons of these
>manufacturers, but mostly for the 802.11b products).

Here's a bunch of articles and sources for the Senao cards.
http://www.seattlewireless.net/index.cgi/SenaoCard

Comparison of various cards receiver sensitivity:
http://www.freenetworks.org/moin/ind...iveSensitivity

Senao puts out 3dB more power than Cisco, and is about 3dB more
sensitive on receive. I would go with Senao.



--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

> Ahem. More power is not a great solution for interfence. All you'll
> be doing with your higher power transmitter is creating more
> interference for someone elses receiver. Meanwhile, your receiver
> will still hear the same amount of interference it heard with the
> Orinoco card. What will you do when everyone is running high power
> xmitters? The real solution to interference it to adjust the antenna
> patterns, location, or gain to avoid the sources of interference.
>

Jeff, thanks for the reply. I've given this a fair amount of thought. I had
read both of those articles before, and particularly the one on receiver
sensitivity. Adding a suitable antenna would be the optimal solution (my WAP
doesn't have removable antennas, so I would have to buy one that does before
erecting an external solution). And relocating the WAP in my house would
require lots of test drilling of holes to find a suitable path down to my
basement (my WAP is on the second floor). I have central A/C, so there's
plenty of metal flashing and ductwork to contend with. I'm not in the mood
to tear up and repatch sheetrock just to run some Cat5E (at least not at the
moment). So it's either get a better WAP with an antenna, or get a better PC
card.

> >
> >So, Cisco or Senao. Any thoughts? (I've seen comparisons of these
> >manufacturers, but mostly for the 802.11b products).
>
> Here's a bunch of articles and sources for the Senao cards.
> http://www.seattlewireless.net/index.cgi/SenaoCard
>
> Comparison of various cards receiver sensitivity:
> http://www.freenetworks.org/moin/ind...iveSensitivity
>
> Senao puts out 3dB more power than Cisco, and is about 3dB more
> sensitive on receive. I would go with Senao.
>

I was leaning toward the Senao, but my concern is the radiation issue (if
there is one) and battery usage. A 200mW card would likely kick out a fair
amount of energy, and would kill my laptop battery in no time (forcing me to
keep it on the charge cord, which kind of defeats the "wireless" notion).

And while the radiation info. is still up in the air, I would rather contend
with the radiation from a 100mW card than a 200mW card. If I were able to
scale down the power of the Senao to 100mW (and kick it up to 200mW only
when I really needed the juice), then the Senao should be a no-brainer. But
I wonder whether the Senao, scaled down to 100mW, will give me the same
performance that the Cisco will at the same level.

Decisions, decisions!

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:19:08 GMT, "DCWhitty" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Adding a suitable antenna would be the optimal solution (my WAP
>doesn't have removable antennas, so I would have to buy one that does before
>erecting an external solution).

Bah. Almost all WAP's have PCMCIA cards inside for the RF section.
To get from these cards to the non-removeable antennas is a small coax
pigtail coming from the antenna. The antenna is held in with a nut
and the pigtail with some type of connector. Replace the antenna with
a bulkhead mount coax connector and pigtail assembly, and you have
your external antenna connection. If there's no place to mount the
connector, just let it hang out the back. The only problem with this
method is that attaching connectors to tiny coax cables requires some
expertise, tools, experience, and patience. You can get pre-assembled
pigtails but they're usually custom made and expensive.

>And relocating the WAP in my house would
>require lots of test drilling of holes to find a suitable path down to my
>basement (my WAP is on the second floor).

Follow the mice. They usually know the best path.

>I have central A/C, so there's
>plenty of metal flashing and ductwork to contend with. I'm not in the mood
>to tear up and repatch sheetrock just to run some Cat5E (at least not at the
>moment).

One of my lazy friends just threw the CAT5 out the window, down the
side of the house, and into the ground floor. No respectable
installer rips up sheet rock to install CAT5. (Maybe to install
conduit). I used to have a long flexible shank drill that I used to
re-route wires inside walls. If you can get to the attic and to the
top of the wall, you can drill straight down as far as you need to go.

>So it's either get a better WAP with an antenna, or get a better PC
>card.

Y'er going through 2 floors, which is normally a crap shoot. More
power will be better, but will not solve the basic problem of severe
attenuation through the floors.

>I was leaning toward the Senao, but my concern is the radiation issue (if
>there is one) and battery usage. A 200mW card would likely kick out a fair
>amount of energy, and would kill my laptop battery in no time (forcing me to
>keep it on the charge cord, which kind of defeats the "wireless" notion).

Yep. Efficiency at 2.4GHz sucks. However, it's not that huge an
increase. Methinks you'll barely notice the slight increase in
battery drain.

>And while the radiation info. is still up in the air, I would rather contend
>with the radiation from a 100mW card than a 200mW card. If I were able to
>scale down the power of the Senao to 100mW (and kick it up to 200mW only
>when I really needed the juice), then the Senao should be a no-brainer. But
>I wonder whether the Senao, scaled down to 100mW, will give me the same
>performance that the Cisco will at the same level.

Wrongo. The reason cell phones are a potential radiation exposure
problem is that people use them with the radiating element (antenna)
next to their head. RF exposure works with inverse square law. Half
the distance and you get 4 times the exposure. 1/10 the distance and
you get 100 times the exposure. Therefore, the important factor is
your distance to the antenna, not the power output. As long as you
keep a few inches or so away from the antenna, you should have no
problems. However, if you're doing a "wearable computer", you may
have to do something about positioning the antenna away from your
head.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> I used to have a long flexible shank drill that I used to
> re-route wires inside walls. If you can get to the attic and to the
> top of the wall, you can drill straight down as far as you need to go.

How long was that drill?

--
Steve

Our representative government today is perhaps more representative than it
has ever been before in history. It is not necessarily representative _per
capita_, but it most surely is _ad valorem_.
- Fred Pohl & C. M. Kornbluth, "The Space Merchants" [1953]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:32:08 GMT, Steve Caple
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> I used to have a long flexible shank drill that I used to
>> re-route wires inside walls. If you can get to the attic and to the
>> top of the wall, you can drill straight down as far as you need to go.

>How long was that drill?

You should see the condom the comes with it. My drill bits are rather
short. Only about 3ft. Some types are 6 ft long. However, I have a
collection of rigid and flexible extensions that will extend the bit
to perhaps 25ft. I've never tried to actually drill something through
two floors in one time. I think 10 or 12ft is what I was using to go
through one floor. Power was supplied by a Milwalkie "Hole Hawg"
drill (Polish drill), which would fit nicely between the studs.

Long flex drill bits.
http://www.thomasregister.com/olc/11710639/flexible.htm
http://www.lashen.com/vendors/BES/Fish_Bits.asp
Note the small hole near the tip of the drill bit to use as a pull
line anchor.

Milwaukee Hole Hawg drill:
http://www.mytoolstore.com/milwauke/1670-1.html


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# (E-Mail Removed)
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager (E-Mail Removed) AE6KS

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> However, I have a collection of rigid and flexible extensions that will
> extend the bit to perhaps 25ft. I've never tried to actually drill
> something through two floors in one time. I think 10 or 12ft is what I
> was using to go through one floor.

What I really wondered was how much whipping about was involved (of the
drill shaft / extensions that is) and how you would get the bit started in
drilling through a fireblock some 5 feet below the ceiling?

Glad to hear you't practicing safe, if boring, drilling.

--
Steve

Our representative government today is perhaps more representative than it
has ever been before in history. It is not necessarily representative _per
capita_, but it most surely is _ad valorem_.
- Fred Pohl & C. M. Kornbluth, "The Space Merchants" [1953]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:52:32 GMT, Steve Caple
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> However, I have a collection of rigid and flexible extensions that will
>> extend the bit to perhaps 25ft. I've never tried to actually drill
>> something through two floors in one time. I think 10 or 12ft is what I
>> was using to go through one floor.

>What I really wondered was how much whipping about was involved (of the
>drill shaft / extensions that is) and how you would get the bit started in
>drilling through a fireblock some 5 feet below the ceiling?

No whipping at all. That only happens if you use an ordinary drill
bit and high rpm's. With a self-feeding auger and a 300rpm drill, the
shaft does very little flexing and absolutely no whipping. Getting
the auger into the center of the fire block is tricky, especially when
the wall is full of fiber-itch insulation. However, once the upper
hole is center drilled, the others are almost self aligning. Some
installers use a foam pad around the drill bit to help center the
initial drilling in the wall, but it blocks the view and methinks is a
waste of effort.

It does take some practice, and I will confess to having drilled
sideways through the drywall twice before I learned to go slowly,
measure twice, and not to make assumptions. Also, there's a potential
problem with electrical wiring in the walls, especially Romex. When I
was doing wiring, I just made it a point to avoid anything near a wall
outlet or switch. Today, I would use a tone tester to locate the
electrical wiring exactly.

>Glad to hear you't practicing safe, if boring, drilling.

That was many years ago. Now days I just watch the scenery go by.
Probably caused by too much exposure to RF.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# (E-Mail Removed)
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager (E-Mail Removed) AE6KS