CONNECTOR ADAPTERS

I am loking for RP TNC to standard SMA adapters.

The reason being I just cludge together a 1/2wl coial antenna made of .
141" hardline and hobby brass tubing for the sleeve. Right off I
noticed this antenna had about 3db more gain than the plastic coated
antenna on that came with the router although these are supposedly the
same type antenna.


Jimmie

On Oct 1, 6:21*pm, jimmi...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am loking for RP TNC to standard SMA adapters.
>
> The reason being I just cludge together a 1/2wl coial antenna made of .
> 141" hardline and *hobby brass tubing for the sleeve. Right off I
> noticed this antenna had about 3db more gain than the plastic coated
> antenna on that came with the router although these are supposedly the
> same type antenna.
>
> Jimmie

Oh I can tell I wrote this in a rush. Coial = coaxial

and I am trying to build a little less kludged design now that I know
it works. I thought the conenctors world help me dress it up a bit.

Sorry been in the hospital for a little outpatient surgery yesterday,
still a little out of it.

Jimmie

On Oct 1, 10:32*pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 18:27:34 -0700 (PDT), jimmi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Oct 1, 6:21*pm, jimmi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I am loking for RP TNC to standard SMA adapters.
>
> >> The reason being I just cludge together a 1/2wl coial antenna made of ..
> >> 141" hardline and *hobby brass tubing for the sleeve. Right off I
> >> noticed this antenna had about 3db more gain than the plastic coated
> >> antenna on that came with the router although these are supposedly the
> >> same type antenna.
>
> >> Jimmie
>
> >Oh I can tell I wrote this in a rush. Coial = coaxial
>
> >and I am trying to build a little less kludged design now that I know
> >it works. I thought the conenctors world help me dress it up a bit.
>
> >Sorry been in the hospital for a little outpatient surgery yesterday,
> >still a little out of it.
>
> Well, your spelling is having a bad day, but everything else seems
> intact. *Good luck on the recovery thing.
>
> I found plenty of [RP-TNC to RP-SMA] but no [RP-TNC to SMA] with
> various Google searches. *I'm fairly sure someone makes it, but I sure
> couldn't find it. *You can do it with two adapters, but at that point,
> you might as well buy a pair of crimp connectors, and make a pigtail.
> That's what I do for my wi-fi antennas.
>
> Oh, found one:
> <http://www.pasternack.com/product-SMA-MALE-TO-REV.-POL.-TNC-MALE-PE96...>
> The picture is all wrong and the price is outrageous. *Use the adapter
> wizard if I picked the wrong sex. *Otherwise, I suggest that you make
> your own "pigtail". *
>
> Incidentally, crimp tools aren't that expensive if you know what to
> buy:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/Misc/slides/crimpers.html>
> These are about $35/ea (or less). *2 of them cover everything from
> LMR-100 to LMR-400 (SMA to Type N). *I think the numbers are:
> * HT-336K (yellow handles)
> * HT-336G (green handles)
>
> While I've got you drugged and cooperative, I suggest you build
> something better than a coaxial antenna. *That's what's inside the
> typical wireless access point antenna:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/coaxial/slides/coax-ant.html>
> If you need a head scratcher, notice that the exposed center conductor
> is a 1/4 wavelength long, but the coaxial sleeve is considerably
> shorter. *
>
> There are plenty of better antennas worth building:
> <http://www.dxzone.com/catalog/Antennas/WiFi/>
>
> I recommend an AMOS or Franklin antenna:
> <http://pe2er.nl/wifisector/>
> <http://yu1aw.ba-karlsruhe.de/ANT.htm>
> <http://yu1aw.ba-karlsruhe.de/vhf_ant.htm>
> <http://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/vhf_ant.htm>
> <http://www.brest-wireless.net/gallery/AntenneAmos>
> <http://www.brest-wireless.net/wiki/materiel:amos>
> The hard part is making the balun. *Use semi-rigid solderable coax and
> you'll be fine. *A biquad is also a good wi-fi antenna, but the
> AMOS/Franklin has more gain and a better (sector antenna) pattern.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann * * je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558- Hide quoted text-
>
> - Show quoted text -

I guess it must be the drugs because I have a brass door kick here and
I am invisioning it as the
groundplane for the AMOS/Franklin.

Whats the practical length limit you could make the AMOS antenna at
2.4Ghz? I have a 10ft piece of 3 inch fiberglass tubing.

Jimmie

On Oct 2, 5:52*am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> One of the problems with building and designing AMOS/Franklin antennas
> is that nobody seems to have posted an NEC2 deck suitable for
> tinkering. *5 frustrating hours later, I threw together a 5 dipole
> AMOS antenna model. *See:
> <http://11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/AMOS-5/>
> The NEC2 file is stuck to the bottom of:
> <http://11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/AMOS-5/slides/AMOS-5.html>
>
> The design is from dimensions stolen unchanged from the chart near the
> bottom of:
> <http://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/amos_article.pdf>
> Most (not all) of the letter designations in the above article were
> used in the model. *Everything is in wavelengths with results scaled
> for 2.4GHz. *That will allow the antenna to be easily scaled for other
> frequencies without recalculating all the dimensions.
>
> I did not model the required 4:1 (impedance) balun. *I cheated and
> just set the working impedance to 200 ohms. *I'll fix it later (after
> I figure out how to model a balun).
>
> The two halves of the GW dipole wires are un-necessarily duplicated in
> the model. *I'll fix it later with a GX card.
>
> The 4:1 VSWR is also far too high. *The dimensions in the article are
> close but not correct and will need to be tweaked. *I'll run the
> optimizer later and post corrected dimensions (time permitting) and
> when I move it to a faster machine.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann * * je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

I am a little bit familar with these antennas, though I didnt know
them by this name, because they are sometimes used with
secondary radar systems. I was thinking of placing two antennas
in my fiberglass tube to create an omni pattern.

This would probably two antennas mounted on opposite sides
of the same reflector.

Please keep in mind I like to try a lot of things for which I really
dont have
a practical use. I have also done quite a bit of learning by
destroying.

Jimmie

On Oct 1, 10:32*pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 18:27:34 -0700 (PDT), jimmi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Oct 1, 6:21*pm, jimmi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I am loking for RP TNC to standard SMA adapters.
>
> >> The reason being I just cludge together a 1/2wl coial antenna made of ..
> >> 141" hardline and *hobby brass tubing for the sleeve. Right off I
> >> noticed this antenna had about 3db more gain than the plastic coated
> >> antenna on that came with the router although these are supposedly the
> >> same type antenna.
>
> >> Jimmie
>


Ok, I found some connectors that will go from RP male TNC directly to .
141 hardline for about $9 each plus shipping. This seem to be the way
for me to go on some of my client PCs as it has a little less loss
than the factory antenna and by making the .141 hardline long enough I
can make it peak from behind the PC giving it a better LOS view of the
AP. To clear up my confusing ramblings instead of rewriting. The
antenna for the AP will be made use RP male TNC connectors and the
client PCs will use RP sma connectors both connected to .141 hardline.
The antennas for the AP may wind up being colinear arrays. I will at
least build 1 for play. The antennas for the client PCs will be 1/2 wl
coaxial dipoles. I was thinking of building a 2.4Ghz version of the
old ISOPOLE antenna but couldnt figure out how to build the impedance
matching network.

JImmie

On Oct 2, 11:57*am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:32:20 -0700 (PDT), jimmi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Oct 2, 5:52*am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >> One of the problems with building and designing AMOS/Franklin antennas
> >> is that nobody seems to have posted an NEC2 deck suitable for
> >> tinkering. *5 frustrating hours later, I threw together a 5 dipole
> >> AMOS antenna model. *See:
> >> <http://11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/AMOS-5/>
>
> Argh. *I just found a big mistake. *I'll fix it sometime today and add
> more models as time permits. *(Still, not bad for after midnight
> hacking).
>
> >I am a little bit familar with these antennas, though I didnt know
> >them by this name, because they are sometimes used with
> >secondary radar systems. I was thinking of placing two antennas
> >in my fiberglass tube to create an omni pattern.
>
> There are photos and models on:
> <http://www.qsl.net/yu1aw/vhf_ant.htm>
> that do exactly that. *Search for:
> * "Omnidirectional antenna built from two Amos antennas".
>
> >This would probably two antennas mounted on opposite sides
> >of the same reflector.
>
> Yep. *You'll need a power splitter. *Note that the tx power is split
> equally between the two antennas, thus reducing your EIRP to half from
> each antenna. *However, the receive sensitivity is unaffected by the
> presence of the 2nd antenna and power divider. *The bad news is that
> omni type antennas pickup interference equally well in all directions.
> Think carefully before using or building an omni.
>
> >Please keep in mind I like to try a lot of things for which I really
> >dont have
> >a practical use. I have also done quite a bit of learning by
> >destroying.
>
> On the other foot, everything I do has a dollar sign attached.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann * * je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

I don't follow why the receiver is not effected by the power divider.
The receiver has a minimum SNR where it can function, and you have
reduced the signal fed to the receiver, so you would think it's
performance will suffer.

On Oct 2, 7:10*pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:57:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Argh. *I just found a big mistake. *I'll fix it sometime today and add
> >more models as time permits. *(Still, not bad for after midnight
> >hacking).
>
> Ok. *Mistakes and screwups are now mostly fixed. *See:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/AMOS-5/>
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/AMOS-7/>
> I'm still using 200 ohms instead of 50 ohms until I figure out how to
> model a balun. *I also got a surprise in that the gain of the 7 dipole
> version is only about 1 dB more than the 5 dipole version. *That
> probably means I goofed somewhere. *The NEC2 deck is in there
> somewhere.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann * * je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

Another thing came to mind. If your wifi box is MIMO, does that mean
you can skip the power divider and just connect an antenna to each
port?

On Oct 2, 10:05*pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:40:12 -0700 (PDT), jimmi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Ok, I found some connectors that will go from RP male TNC directly to
> >.141 hardline for about $9 each plus shipping.
>
> Nope. *.141 hard line is too small and lossy to be useful beyond about
> a meter in length. *It's also difficult to handle. *I suggest you get
> a length of LMR-240 coax (about 0.240" dia) and matching RF Industries
> crimp connectors, which should cost about $6/ea from various online
> vendors. *Also get the crimping tools I mentioned.
> <http://www.fab-corp.com/home.php?cat=274>

For my use I would only be using a few inches per antenna, a foot at
the most. Im talking about an indoor antenna mounted on the back of a
PC or wireless router. I want the feedline to be stiff because I
intend for it to be the support for the antenna rather than encasing
the antenna in plastic.

On Oct 3, 12:28*pm, LR <l...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:59:09 -0700 (PDT), m...@sushi.com wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 2, 11:57 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Yep. *You'll need a power splitter. *Note that the tx power is split
> >>> equally between the two antennas, thus reducing your EIRP to half from
> >>> each antenna. *However, the receive sensitivity is unaffected by the
> >>> presence of the 2nd antenna and power divider. *The bad news is that
> >>> omni type antennas pickup interference equally well in all directions..
> >> Think carefully before using or building an omni.
>
> >> I don't follow why the receiver is not effected by the power divider.
> >> The receiver has a minimum SNR where it can function, and you have
> >> reduced the signal fed to the receiver, so you would think it's
> >> performance will suffer.
>
> > Well, it requires that you understand how a Wilkinson power
> > divider/combiner works. *Let's name the 3 ports A, B, and C, where A
> > and B are the two ports going to seperate antennas, and C is the
> > "common" I/O port. *Also, to make things simple, let's ignore the
> > usual 0.5dB internal loss and pretent there's perfect isolation
> > between A and B.
>
> > If you send some RF into port C, the power gets equally divided
> > between ports A and B. *
>
> > If you send some RF into port A, all the power appears at port C and
> > none appears at port B.
>
> > If you send some RF into port B, all the power appears at port C and
> > none appears at port C.
>
> I assume you mean none appears at port A.
> If there are no losses from port A to port C and no losses from port B
> to port C why don't you get twice the output at port C , assuming the
> injected signals are identical?
>
> I was under the impression that with a Wilkinson combiner half the power
> was dissipated in the internal resistor and half in the output load.
> i.e. 10mw at port A would give 5mw at port C.
> * * * 10mw at port B would give 5mw at port C.
> If the signals are identical output at port C would be 10mw or am I
> wrong as usual.
>
>
>
> > If you connect a receiver to port C and two antennas to A and B,
> > there's no loss in sensitivity. *All the power received by each
> > antenna goes to the receiver.
>
> > If you connect a transmitter to port C and two antennas to A and B,
> > then the TX power is divided equally between the two antennas with a
> > corresponding reduction in signal strength.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As long as the inputs/ outputs are balance the power in the internal
resistor is 0.

Jimmie

On Oct 3, 12:28*pm, LR <l...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:59:09 -0700 (PDT), m...@sushi.com wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 2, 11:57 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Yep. *You'll need a power splitter. *Note that the tx power is split
> >>> equally between the two antennas, thus reducing your EIRP to half from
> >>> each antenna. *However, the receive sensitivity is unaffected by the
> >>> presence of the 2nd antenna and power divider. *The bad news is that
> >>> omni type antennas pickup interference equally well in all directions..
> >> Think carefully before using or building an omni.
>
> >> I don't follow why the receiver is not effected by the power divider.
> >> The receiver has a minimum SNR where it can function, and you have
> >> reduced the signal fed to the receiver, so you would think it's
> >> performance will suffer.
>
> > Well, it requires that you understand how a Wilkinson power
> > divider/combiner works. *Let's name the 3 ports A, B, and C, where A
> > and B are the two ports going to seperate antennas, and C is the
> > "common" I/O port. *Also, to make things simple, let's ignore the
> > usual 0.5dB internal loss and pretent there's perfect isolation
> > between A and B.
>
> > If you send some RF into port C, the power gets equally divided
> > between ports A and B. *
>
> > If you send some RF into port A, all the power appears at port C and
> > none appears at port B.
>
> > If you send some RF into port B, all the power appears at port C and
> > none appears at port C.
>
> I assume you mean none appears at port A.
> If there are no losses from port A to port C and no losses from port B
> to port C why don't you get twice the output at port C , assuming the
> injected signals are identical?
>
> I was under the impression that with a Wilkinson combiner half the power
> was dissipated in the internal resistor and half in the output load.
> i.e. 10mw at port A would give 5mw at port C.
> * * * 10mw at port B would give 5mw at port C.
> If the signals are identical output at port C would be 10mw or am I
> wrong as usual.
>
>
>
> > If you connect a receiver to port C and two antennas to A and B,
> > there's no loss in sensitivity. *All the power received by each
> > antenna goes to the receiver.
>
> > If you connect a transmitter to port C and two antennas to A and B,
> > then the TX power is divided equally between the two antennas with a
> > corresponding reduction in signal strength.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are at least somewhat correct if you are talking about putting in
a signal into port A and only port A. Im not sure just how much would
be dissipated in the resistor in this case. I dont think its half. I
think the output would be about 70% of the input in this case, this is
just off the top of my head. Under the ideal conditions the
powercombinner is suppose to operate the would be no power dissipated
in the resistor. As a matter of fact under ideal conditions where the
power and phase into A and B ports are equal the resistor would not
even be needed.

Jimmie