rt-n66u radios and antennas questions

[1.21 jigowatts!]

are the 3 external antennas on the rt-n66u 2.4ghz only? i've heard that they are dual band antennas but how can 2 radios be hooked up to the same antenna?


also, is there a detrimental effect if i mix antennas with different gain? i have a 8dbi 2.4ghz antenna that i'm thinking of putting in the middle, pointing straight up, with the two stock antennas on the sides at 45 degrees. would this cause havoc with the Ai Radar or other issues?

 

[sinshiva]

wireless is kind of like each frequency being it's own universe. wifi uses like a group of frequencies per channel for throughput. the frequencies themselves never collide or interfere with eachother, it's only the devices connected wirelessly or the AP itself that causes trouble.

Some companies do use dedicated amps for both wifi frequency ranges, 2.4ghz and 5ghz, I'm not sure if dedicated amps provide any performance benefit.

Rather than playing with antennas, i'd consider getting a decent oldish wifi router to use as an AP. Assuming you aren't loaded up on AC devices, since you've chosen the N66U path

 

[1.21 jigowatts!]

Rather than playing with antennas, i'd consider getting a decent oldish wifi router to use as an AP.

why would i do that? i got rid of my old wrt54gl for the n66u.

 

[jim769]

If you use a mono band 2.4 ghz antenna you will run into problems unless you turn the 5 ghz band off. Every antenna must be matched to the frequency that it transmits this is called SWR or standing wave ratio if there is a mismatch then the radios will over heat and burn out. If you want to try different antennas make sure they are duel band 2.4 and 5 ghz.

 

[wouterv]

In addition to the above: radio communication is two way, from the router to your clients and from your clients to the router.
Enhancing the router side only (with what ever better antenna's or increasing the transmit power), usually doesnt bring much without also enhancing the client network adapter.
Compare it with old school radio station broadcasting, if I can listen to BBC Radio, it doesnt garantee that BCC Radio can hear me.
Household routers and access points and wireless network adapters are made for limited wireless coverage (to covers a "standard" house only).
The best enhnacements you get with proper channel selection (no neighbor disturbance) and proper location of the router or access point (ideally a direct open line of sight to the clients and no disturbance by reflections or absorbtion).

 

[RogerSC]

Enhancing the router side only (with what ever better antenna's or increasing the transmit power), usually doesnt bring much without also enhancing the client network adapter.

Actually, if you enhance the antennas on the router, then you do enhance both the transmitted signal and the signal received from the client at the router. It's when you only turn up the power on the router that while clients can hear the router further away, but the router cannot hear the client any better than it could before. So it definitely is better to work on improving the router's antennas than it is to work on raising the transmit power of the router (unless you also get higher powered clients, of course).

 

[wouterv]

Theorethically you are correct regarding antenna's.
With routers and access points, the position of their antennas, the relative restricted omnidirectional antenna design (even those magic HiGain ones), the final effect of non-stock antennas will most times be disappointing.
The antenna design should be much more enhanced and directional to give a significant difference.
The problem with our routers and access points is mostly their location, in a corner of the house, in close proximity of walls and furniture or even stowed away in closets. No matter stock antennas or HiGain antenna's, if the router/antenna location is terribly bad, the coverage will be likewise.

 

[sinshiva]

well, roger did make an excellent point; while the antenna's might not be significantly beneficial in expanding coverage, increasing their receptivity is nearly as important. I've dealt with long range wifi giving me 1-2mbps on some desperate occasions. Usually the problems i've encountered have more to do with client Tx rather than Rx.

[edit/] though, i still do think adding APs is a better solution

 

[RogerSC]

Nothing wrong with either working on your antennas or adding AP's. The advantage to adding AP's can be that you are not making your transmit/receive signal patterns more directional. Since physics dictates that if you want to increase the distance (coverage) using a given amount of transmitted energy that means that those higher gain antennas have to be concentrating the radiated energy more in some directions/orientations than others. Higher gain = more directional. So it can depend on the shape of the space that you're trying to cover as to which way you go.

My house is sort of long, so higher gain antennas oriented in the long direction are of use. So is an AP at the other end of the house. For me, I can cover my whole house with either of the last two routers I've had on both 2.4 and 5GHz., so I don't need either higher gain antennas or AP's at this point.

To clarify my statement, I wasn't speaking in favor of higher gain antennas or against AP's, they both have their places and advantages and drawbacks. Just so that what I said wasn't miscontrued to be saying not to use AP's, or that higher gain antennas is the right thing to do. I meant to be neutral, just clarify a point about higher gain antennas.