80mW vs 40mW

[Chippy_boy]

Just updated my RT-N66U firmware from x.x.x.90 to x.x.x.108.

I note the wireless output power now defaults to 80mW instead of 40mW previously. However, I can detect no discernible improvement to the wifi signal (which was superb before, anyway).

Is there any reason why I should / should not revert to 40mW output?

 

[AnthonyArmato]

Using inSSIDer doesn't show any difference in signal range toward the weak points when on 80 vs 40 ?

 

[TonyH]

Hi,
That is only 3db difference on theory. If 40mW is enough for you, no need to set it at 80mW. More power means more heat(wasted energy)

 

[Chippy_boy]

Using inSSIDer doesn't show any difference in signal range toward the weak points when on 80 vs 40 ?

Dunno - never tried it (or heard of it!) I will give it a go.

@TonyH - thanks for the advice.

The thing is, the router doesn't seem remotely warmer than before, I am wondering if this default 80mW vs the previous 40mW is not in fact an increase in output at all. Maybe it's a bug-fix and the output was 80mW in the first place?

Has anyone else noticed any improvement to their wifi coverage in moving to the 108 firmware (and default 80mW instead of 40mW output)?

 

[njweb]

Dunno - never tried it (or heard of it!) I will give it a go.

@TonyH - thanks for the advice.

The thing is, the router doesn't seem remotely warmer than before, I am wondering if this default 80mW vs the previous 40mW is not in fact an increase in output at all. Maybe it's a bug-fix and the output was 80mW in the first place?

Has anyone else noticed any improvement to their wifi coverage in moving to the 108 firmware (and default 80mW instead of 40mW output)?

Good question.
I asked the exact same thing when the new default first came about!
Based on my experience, 80mW with the latest firmware performs similarly to 40mW with firmware xxxx90. I am not sure if 40mW lowers the signal much though. I have not done any new tests in a while.

In fact with 40mW on xxxx90 I seemed to have slightly better signal quality on my furthest wifi-enabled Blu-Ray player than I get now with xxxx108 and 80mW.

Hopefully others can comment.

My unit does not get any warmer now than before.

 

[delair2]

Good question.
I asked the exact same thing when the new default first came about!
Based on my experience, 80mW with the latest firmware performs similarly to 40mW with firmware xxxx90. I am not sure if 40mW lowers the signal much though. I have not done any new tests in a while.

In fact with 40mW on xxxx90 I seemed to have slightly better signal quality on my furthest wifi-enabled Blu-Ray player than I get now with xxxx108 and 80mW.

Hopefully others can comment.

My unit does not get any warmer now than before.

Using Ver .108 stock, I've set both bands to 100mW ( for about two weeks now). I haven't noticed the unit getting any warmer and I saw a direct correlation between 100 mW and better RSSI.

 

[AnthonyArmato]

How much of an improvement ?

 

[RogerSC]

In theory, doubling the power only raises the signal by 3 dBm (logarithmic scale), so raising it from 80mw to 100mw shouldn't be much stronger. Personally, I'll just leave it at the default, since that works fine for me, and is probably a little better for my neighbors as well *smile*.

 

[delair2]

How much of an improvement ?

In the location that I use the most on the 5GHz band( 20' away one floor down from the router)--the RSSI went from about -58 / -60 range to -54 /-57. I believe the mW default set on my e4200 V2 is 100 mW so I thought I would try the same for the N66U.

 

[AnthonyArmato]

I've got mine set to 160mW.

 

[patrickgerry]

I've got mine set to 160mW.

wow. Did you run first with 80mw to establish base readings for comparison? I would be very much interested in your test results. Thanks.

 

[AnthonyArmato]

I did. On 160mW my desktop is getting about a -18 RSSI reading. On 80mW it gets about -27 RSSI. This is on 2.4Ghz. Not a huge improvement but it helps with range a bit. Will be testing higher values soon.

 

[AnthonyArmato]

Have been running @ 500mW and really see not much, if any, improvement over 160mW.

 

[claykin]

Have been running @ 500mW and really see not much, if any, improvement over 160mW.

Most wifi clients transmit with 32-50mW so if the router cannot receive a strong enough signal back from the client it cannot complete a handshake. Most wifi routers are 80-100mW.

I will recommend you keep this router at least 3 feet from any human. The RF exposure (SAR) of 500mW could be bad over the long haul. Yes, FCC has approved up to 1W for 802.11 consumer devices, however I would still err on the side of caution. 5Ghz @ 500mW can potentially absorb into your tissue quite easily. 5Ghz has a very short wavelength and is well into the microwave band.

 

[RogerSC]

Most wifi clients transmit with 32-50mW so if the router cannot receive a strong enough signal back from the client it cannot complete a handshake. Most wifi routers are 80-100mW.

I will recommend you keep this router at least 3 feet from any human. The RF exposure (SAR) of 500mW could be bad over the long haul. Yes, FCC has approved up to 1W for 802.11 consumer devices, however I would still err on the side of caution. 5Ghz @ 500mW can potentially absorb into your tissue quite easily. 5Ghz has a very short wavelength and is well into the microwave band.

Sounds like a small microwave slow cooker, when you put it that way.

 

[AnthonyArmato]

I was only running as a test. 500mW is not my "normal" output.

 

[claykin]

Thats one way to look at it. If I recall correctly the actual RF power of a typical 1100W microwave oven is 700W of RF @ 2.4Ghz. Yes thats significantly higher than 500mW. Keep in mind that a microwave oven is a faraday cage and its limited to 2.4Ghz.

Plus no one leaves their microwave oven on 24/7. Wifi, yes!