Horrible range with Orinoco card

I just bought a Orinoco card with a external antenna (7dbi boost).
The range is to be horrible compared to my cisco aironet card.
Connecting to a near by wap give me about -20 db signal strength, when
the Orinoco card with out antenna gives me -60 db and with the antenna
gives me -70db. I have tried grounding the magnetic base of the
antenna to a few things and just holding or setting it on a table and
I get the same results. The card is labeled Enterasys Roamabout, but
it was sold as a rebadged Orinoco gold card. The only drivers I had
for windows xp were the Orinoco drives I found on the web which
worked. Is this all the range I should execpt or did I get taken and
sold a junk card.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:21:37 -0500, mikep187 <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I just bought a Orinoco card with a external antenna (7dbi boost).
>The range is to be horrible compared to my cisco aironet card.
>Connecting to a near by wap give me about -20 db signal strength, when
>the Orinoco card with out antenna gives me -60 db and with the antenna
>gives me -70db. I have tried grounding the magnetic base of the
>antenna to a few things and just holding or setting it on a table and
>I get the same results. The card is labeled Enterasys Roamabout, but
>it was sold as a rebadged Orinoco gold card. The only drivers I had
>for windows xp were the Orinoco drives I found on the web which
>worked. Is this all the range I should execpt or did I get taken and
>sold a junk card.

You have a problem. Probably a defective card.

Since Christmas I've purchased and then either kept or returned a total of
11 different WiFi client devices. My Orinoco card is one of the keepers.
It has one of the best receivers of any of the cards I tested. I'm
posting through this card right now. I'm about 75 feet, a concrete block
wall and a wood stud wall away from my Netgear WAP. I have one of those
small cellular-type whip antennas connected through about 6 ft of
non-low-loss coax. I currently see a signal strength of -60 db. With an
SMC brand panel antenna that improves to -51. The internal antenna
reports -71. With all except the internal antenna, the link speed is
reported as the full 54mb speed in both directions.

My only complaint is that the driver performance is worse than some of the
others I tested, limiting thruput and chewing up enough CPU cycles that my
laptop's fan runs faster to keep up with the extra heat generated. Only
the SMC card is worse in that regard.

I'd send that card back and get another. Or better yet, just get a Proxim
branded card. That way you can be sure nothing has been cut from the card
in the process of cobranding.

John
---
John De Armond
(E-Mail Removed)
http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/johngd/
Cleveland, Occupied TN

I believe the Enterasys card is made by Proxim, but Enterasys provides its
own drivers and firmware for the card. The Orinoco drivers might work, but
through put will most likly degrade.

You should D/L the drivers from Enterasys for your card. go to
http://www.enterasys.com/download/download.cgi?lib=roam to find the driver
you need.

"Neon John" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:21:37 -0500, mikep187 <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>I just bought a Orinoco card with a external antenna (7dbi boost).
>>The range is to be horrible compared to my cisco aironet card.
>>Connecting to a near by wap give me about -20 db signal strength, when
>>the Orinoco card with out antenna gives me -60 db and with the antenna
>>gives me -70db. I have tried grounding the magnetic base of the
>>antenna to a few things and just holding or setting it on a table and
>>I get the same results. The card is labeled Enterasys Roamabout, but
>>it was sold as a rebadged Orinoco gold card. The only drivers I had
>>for windows xp were the Orinoco drives I found on the web which
>>worked. Is this all the range I should execpt or did I get taken and
>>sold a junk card.
>
> You have a problem. Probably a defective card.
>
> Since Christmas I've purchased and then either kept or returned a total of
> 11 different WiFi client devices. My Orinoco card is one of the keepers.
> It has one of the best receivers of any of the cards I tested. I'm
> posting through this card right now. I'm about 75 feet, a concrete block
> wall and a wood stud wall away from my Netgear WAP. I have one of those
> small cellular-type whip antennas connected through about 6 ft of
> non-low-loss coax. I currently see a signal strength of -60 db. With an
> SMC brand panel antenna that improves to -51. The internal antenna
> reports -71. With all except the internal antenna, the link speed is
> reported as the full 54mb speed in both directions.
>
> My only complaint is that the driver performance is worse than some of the
> others I tested, limiting thruput and chewing up enough CPU cycles that my
> laptop's fan runs faster to keep up with the extra heat generated. Only
> the SMC card is worse in that regard.
>
> I'd send that card back and get another. Or better yet, just get a Proxim
> branded card. That way you can be sure nothing has been cut from the card
> in the process of cobranding.
>
> John
> ---
> John De Armond
> (E-Mail Removed)
> http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/johngd/
> Cleveland, Occupied TN

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:21:37 -0500, mikep187 <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I just bought a Orinoco card with a external antenna (7dbi boost).
>The range is to be horrible compared to my cisco aironet card.
>Connecting to a near by wap give me about -20 db signal strength,

How near in feet? What model WAP? What manner of antenna on the WAP?
Such things can be calculated to see if your numbers are reasonable.

>when
>the Orinoco card with out antenna gives me -60 db and with the antenna
>gives me -70db.

Something is broken. If you're getting -60dBm without an external
antenna, you should be getting over 7dB more signal, or about -53dBm,
with the antenna. Instead of gain, you're getting a -10dB loss.

>I have tried grounding the magnetic base of the
>antenna to a few things and just holding or setting it on a table and
>I get the same results.

At 2.4Ghz, that will do absolutely nothing. Any ground that you can
conjur will only act as a reflector. Any connecting wire looks more
like an inductor (RF choke) than a suitable ground. What manner of
antenna is this thing? Make and model?

>The card is labeled Enterasys Roamabout, but
>it was sold as a rebadged Orinoco gold card.

I've seen the same advertisements on eBay. The vintage is Orinoco
"classic", which is the same as the original Hermes chipset Orinoco
cards. Since then, various companies have retained the name, but
change the guts radically. The latest Proxim cards are quite good,
but the ones in the between are in my opinion subject to some
suspicion.

I have several Orinoco Silver cards, which are my "standard" test
cards. I use them for everything. They work fine.

>The only drivers I had
>for windows xp were the Orinoco drives I found on the web which
>worked.

Did you use the Orinoco Classic drivers or something else? Version?
http://support.proxim.com/cgi-bin/pr...p?p_faqid=1082

>Is this all the range I should execpt or did I get taken and
>sold a junk card.

It's possible that the card is broken. The numbers you give make no
sense. The signal is suppose to improve with an external antenna, not
deteriorate. However, I can't make much sense of your test
conditions. My wild guess(tm) would be a broken coax connector.

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

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>I have tried grounding the magnetic base of the
>>antenna to a few things and just holding or setting it on a table and
>>I get the same results.

> At 2.4Ghz, that will do absolutely nothing. Any ground that you can
> conjur will only act as a reflector. Any connecting wire looks more
> like an inductor (RF choke) than a suitable ground. What manner of
> antenna is this thing? Make and model?

My mag mount antenna is much happier with a reflective surface under it.
In the car, the roof is the obvious place. In an office, I've found that
many wipe off marking boards are metallic. Filing cabinets work too, but
the 19" cable on my antenna is a limiting factor. In one place, when I
told the customer that I was connecting to a WAP, he said they didn't have
one. Some scouting indicated that it was actually downstairs in a
different company.

http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/re05u.php This is supposed to be a 5dBi
antenna, but I find it makes just a db or two improvement. I think most of
the improvement is from getting the antenna outside the car.


--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:01:05 +0000 (UTC),
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/re05u.php This is supposed to be a 5dBi
>antenna, but I find it makes just a db or two improvement. I think most of
>the improvement is from getting the antenna outside the car.

Hmmm... 6" long. The antenna looks like a 1.25 wave length vertical
collinear. For only the antenna, I would guess an optimistic 5dBi
gain. However, the antenna comes with 5ft of RG-174 coax cable which
has -3dB loss at 2.4GHz. Net gain is 2dB, which is approximately what
you're seeing. HyperLink should have included the coax loss or at
least specified the coax loss seperately. Shorten the coax for better
results.


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

I have that very same antenna. In fact, I'm connected through it right
now. I've seen the same performance you have. It benefits greatly from a
small ground plane. I currently have it sitting on the metal case of the
floppy drive that goes with this laptop. The Orinoco utility reports
-62db receive strength. If I lift up the antenna, remove the floppy drive
and sit the antenna back on the wooden table, the signal strength drops to
-65db.

John


On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:01:05 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed)
wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>I have tried grounding the magnetic base of the
>>>antenna to a few things and just holding or setting it on a table and
>>>I get the same results.
>
>> At 2.4Ghz, that will do absolutely nothing. Any ground that you can
>> conjur will only act as a reflector. Any connecting wire looks more
>> like an inductor (RF choke) than a suitable ground. What manner of
>> antenna is this thing? Make and model?
>
>My mag mount antenna is much happier with a reflective surface under it.
>In the car, the roof is the obvious place. In an office, I've found that
>many wipe off marking boards are metallic. Filing cabinets work too, but
>the 19" cable on my antenna is a limiting factor. In one place, when I
>told the customer that I was connecting to a WAP, he said they didn't have
>one. Some scouting indicated that it was actually downstairs in a
>different company.
>
>http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/re05u.php This is supposed to be a 5dBi
>antenna, but I find it makes just a db or two improvement. I think most of
>the improvement is from getting the antenna outside the car.

---
John De Armond
(E-Mail Removed)
http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/johngd/
Cleveland, Occupied TN

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:01:05 +0000 (UTC),
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>>http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/re05u.php This is supposed to be a 5dBi
>>antenna, but I find it makes just a db or two improvement. I think most of
>>the improvement is from getting the antenna outside the car.

> you're seeing. HyperLink should have included the coax loss or at
> least specified the coax loss seperately. Shorten the coax for better
> results.

Specifying the loss for that little tiny coax with no number branded on it
would have made the antenna much less attractive than advertising it as
5dBi. What fun would that be? Gain should probably be specified at the
connector, whether that be at the base of the antenna, or at the end of the
coax, but ... There it is. There are other resellers offering the
identical antenna (it appears) and also quote 5 dBi. pacwireless was one.
It seems like the overall gain is within the margin of error when looking
at a Netstumbler graph, but I have been able to catch signal that wouldn't
work without it.


--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:43:15 +0000 (UTC),
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:01:05 +0000 (UTC),
>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>>>http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/re05u.php This is supposed to be a 5dBi
>>>antenna, but I find it makes just a db or two improvement. I think most of
>>>the improvement is from getting the antenna outside the car.
>
>> you're seeing. HyperLink should have included the coax loss or at
>> least specified the coax loss seperately. Shorten the coax for better
>> results.

>Specifying the loss for that little tiny coax with no number branded on it
>would have made the antenna much less attractive than advertising it as
>5dBi. What fun would that be?

Reality is rarely very attractive. I'm a bit slow on the superlatives
today, so bear with me. Instead of 5dBi, how about "3x power gain" or
perhaps "3 times better"? Maybe some useless facts like "no tuning
necessary". The coax should probably be listed as "ultra-flexible,
low-loss, 98.5% shielded, and optimized length". That's what I like
about antenna design. It's all magic, you can't see how it work,
comparisons are difficult, and test results can vary either way by
100%. Also, the uglier they are, the better they work.

>Gain should probably be specified at the
>connector, whether that be at the base of the antenna, or at the end of the
>coax, but ... There it is.

Just a slight oversight on the part of every last manufacturer of
antennas with attached pigtails.

>There are other resellers offering the
>identical antenna (it appears) and also quote 5 dBi. pacwireless was one.
>It seems like the overall gain is within the margin of error when looking
>at a Netstumbler graph, but I have been able to catch signal that wouldn't
>work without it.

A very fast and sloppy NEC2 model shows 5.1dBi with a takeoff angle of
about 20 degrees above horizontal, with lots of weird lobes. I don't
think the base has a balun resulting in the requirement for a ground
plane or the VSWR climbs fast. That also means that the coax cable
somewhat mangles the pattern and radiates a bit. I'll do a better job
when I have time.

Drivel: How I spent my weekend. Before:
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/pic...%20Before.html
and after:
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com/pic...m%20After.html
Behind very wireless installation hides a mess of wires.


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

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 07:14:45 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:21:37 -0500, mikep187 <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>I just bought a Orinoco card with a external antenna (7dbi boost).
>>The range is to be horrible compared to my cisco aironet card.
>>Connecting to a near by wap give me about -20 db signal strength,
>
>How near in feet? What model WAP? What manner of antenna on the WAP?
>Such things can be calculated to see if your numbers are reasonable.
>
>>when
>>the Orinoco card with out antenna gives me -60 db and with the antenna
>>gives me -70db.
>
>Something is broken. If you're getting -60dBm without an external
>antenna, you should be getting over 7dB more signal, or about -53dBm,
>with the antenna. Instead of gain, you're getting a -10dB loss.
>
>>I have tried grounding the magnetic base of the
>>antenna to a few things and just holding or setting it on a table and
>>I get the same results.
>
>At 2.4Ghz, that will do absolutely nothing. Any ground that you can
>conjur will only act as a reflector. Any connecting wire looks more
>like an inductor (RF choke) than a suitable ground. What manner of
>antenna is this thing? Make and model?
>
>>The card is labeled Enterasys Roamabout, but
>>it was sold as a rebadged Orinoco gold card.
>
>I've seen the same advertisements on eBay. The vintage is Orinoco
>"classic", which is the same as the original Hermes chipset Orinoco
>cards. Since then, various companies have retained the name, but
>change the guts radically. The latest Proxim cards are quite good,
>but the ones in the between are in my opinion subject to some
>suspicion.
>
>I have several Orinoco Silver cards, which are my "standard" test
>cards. I use them for everything. They work fine.
>
>>The only drivers I had
>>for windows xp were the Orinoco drives I found on the web which
>>worked.
>
>Did you use the Orinoco Classic drivers or something else? Version?
>http://support.proxim.com/cgi-bin/pr...p?p_faqid=1082
>
>>Is this all the range I should execpt or did I get taken and
>>sold a junk card.
>
>It's possible that the card is broken. The numbers you give make no
>sense. The signal is suppose to improve with an external antenna, not
>deteriorate. However, I can't make much sense of your test
>conditions. My wild guess(tm) would be a broken coax connector.


You are the connector is infact broken, part of it broke off today
while I was messing around with it. As for the range issue I believe
it is a issue with netstumbler and my card. For some reason it gives
me -10db all the time for the range reading. Oh well I guess I'll
find a better antenna and see if that helps.