Continue of my wireless upgrade

So in my last thread I got some good info. Now I have a new idea. Or
two. I've got a router in one building and it runs a wire to another
building with a old 10/100 switch. I was wondering if I could replace
this switch with another router so the two routers are connected via
cable but only one has internet. And both give a wireless connection.
Would this work? Or would I have to get a router that supports the
"up-link" thing like the 10/100 switch does?
Or I could get an AP and plug that into the 10/100 switch gaining
another wireless connection with the range I want throughout the
property.

I was looking at a couple of routers and AP's.
What do you think, and would they work how I want them too?

Routers:
TP-Link TL-WR541G -- reasonable price
or D-LINK DIR-635 -- pricey, but has N thinga which would match my
laptops network.

APs:
Netgear WPN802 -- expensive
Netcomm Super-G NB600W -- very cheap


And do you think, if another router would work wired into the existing
one, that just a cheap router with an antenna and 1w amplifier would be
a good option? Would it give the most range?

Thanks.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.wirelessforums.org/showthread.php?t=38334
http://www.wirelessforums.org

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:53:02 -0500, Phizinza
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>So in my last thread I got some good info. Now I have a new idea. Or
>two. I've got a router in one building and it runs a wire to another
>building with a old 10/100 switch. I was wondering if I could replace
>this switch with another router so the two routers are connected via
>cable but only one has internet. And both give a wireless connection.
>Would this work?

Yes. Configure the cascaded router as a wireless access point (as
described in the wiki below).

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

Phizinza wrote:
> And do you think, if another router would work wired into the existing
> one, that just a cheap router with an antenna and 1w amplifier would be
> a good option? Would it give the most range?

Simply increasing the gain on one side with an amplifier isn't a good
solution as the remote client will hear it, but the AP won't hear
the non-amplified client. best to use a higher gain antenna as it will
increase the gain both ways.

If you used a bi-directional amplifier, you'll increase gain both ways.
Buts that's not going to really help as adding a receiver pre-amp only
increases the noise. It might have been Terrabeam that made the comment
that they don't add the additional receiver gain added by a pre-amp in
their calculations.

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:45:12 GMT, DTC <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Phizinza wrote:
>> And do you think, if another router would work wired into the existing
>> one, that just a cheap router with an antenna and 1w amplifier would be
>> a good option? Would it give the most range?
>
>Simply increasing the gain on one side with an amplifier isn't a good
>solution as the remote client will hear it, but the AP won't hear
>the non-amplified client. best to use a higher gain antenna as it will
>increase the gain both ways.

Agreed. Good advice.

>If you used a bi-directional amplifier, you'll increase gain both ways.
>Buts that's not going to really help as adding a receiver pre-amp only
>increases the noise. It might have been Terrabeam that made the comment
>that they don't add the additional receiver gain added by a pre-amp in
>their calculations.

Correct. I think it was YDI or one of the other amplifier
manufacturers that admitted that.

An RX amplifier is useful for reducing the losses caused by the coax
cable between the access point and the bi-directional amplifier. Also
the T/R switching losses in the bi-directional amplfier. More
specifically, the bi-directional amplifier relies on the loss of the
coax cable between the access point and the amplifier to operate. Were
there no coax loss, the added gain of the RX amplifier would probably
overload the receiver front end of the access point, thus reducing its
dynamic range and ability to handle strong signals. Since the RX
sensitivity of such a system is set by the NF (noise figure) of the RX
amplifier, which is not any better than that of the access point,
adding the amplifier will NOT increase the overall RX sensitivity. As
I vaguely recall, the average gain of the amps in both directions are
about 15dB, which means that the coax loss should +be between 10-15dB.
At 13dB/100ft for LMR-240, that seems about right.

There's also a question as to where to throw your money. A dish
antenna will have 24dBi of gain and cost perhaps $60. A 1 watt
amplifier, will have perhaps 15dB of gain in one direction, and cost
$200. How many dollars per decibel do you want to burn?

In case it's not obvious, I think amplifiers are an abomination,
because they create more interference, create asymmetrical TX and RX
ranges, create T/R timing problems, and cost far more than an antenna
solution.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> There's also a question as to where to throw your money. A dish
> antenna will have 24dBi of gain and cost perhaps $60. A 1 watt
> amplifier, will have perhaps 15dB of gain in one direction, and cost
> $200. How many dollars per decibel do you want to burn?

I always find it laughable when companies advertise "highest power
power" radio, typically one full watt. Since your maximum ERIP is
4 watts, you can only use a 6 dBi gain antenna.

We use 16 dBi gain antennas and back the output power down to only
one tenth of a watt. We still get 4 watts EIRP and 16 dB gain on
the receive side.