SDK 5

[ilgeor]

Hi.
I'm the owner of N_66U.

Can you tell me if there is any difference in latest firmware concerning the range?
I remember, some time ago there was a separate folder with firware built on SKD5.
For me, it did really matter, I remember SDK6 really decreased the range of the router so that I couldn't use it

 

[hggomes]

Using SDK5 FW on RT-N66U is non-sense by now, unless you are using it only as an AP/Repeater, there are several critical security failures on those FWs, so using it as your main Wireless Router definitely could compromise your network, also there are other ways to improove your coverage far away better than using those ancient SDK5 FW.

 

[RMerlin]

You can use John's fork if range is your primary concern, as he's using some older code that still has some extended range over the latest firmware code.

 

[hggomes]

Indeed, and/or setting your router position on a central and higher point on the house.

 

[dlandiss]

Indeed, and/or setting your router position on a central and higher point on the house.

Central, yes; higher, not necessarily. Remember that the radiation pattern is a doughnut whose major axes are perpendicular to the antennas (ie, horizontal if the antennas are vertical). Thus it is possible to mount "too high" as well as "too low."

 

[hggomes]

If you have the opportunity please measure your signal strength on all your devices with the router on the same position but on the highest and lowest place in the house, and let me know your conclusions about it.

Yes there exceptions (if you have microwave near the router or other kind of things near blocking the signal on that specific elevated point), each location work differently depending on several factors, but in most of the cases router should be placed on an elevated location free of obstacles and intereferences, remeber this, wave propagation is down from the source.

Have you noticed before where's the location of all the antennas you seen spread all over there?

 

[dlandiss]

in most of the cases router should be placed on an elevated location free of obstacles and intereferences, remeber this, wave propagation is down from the source.

Negative on that. You go ahead and do it your way, I'll rely on 55 years of experience as the holder of a commercial (FCC) radio license and on my engineering textbooks.

 

[hggomes]

If you say so, then i tell you exactly the same, you go ahead and do it your way.

But you still didnt answered my question, where do you see antennas located out there?

Unfortunatelly i am not that old on those 55 years of experience.

Also, i guess they are all wrong then:

"That said, the best place to place your wireless router or access point is in the center of your home and elevated."

http://www.cnet.com/how-to/home-networking-explained-part-2-optimizing-your-wi-fi-network/

"WiFi routers emit radio waves, which spread out and down from their source. Mounting the router to a wall or setting it on a high shelf can give you a better signal, especially if you live in a two-story house and want a good connection on both floors."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/wifi-router-placement-tips_n_6943024.html

FYI: https://goo.gl/o2Zuo3

I only quoted the first two links, but you can also read legions of other pages on this matter.

 

[dlandiss]

Also, i guess they are all wrong

Yep. If radio waves traveled downwards from the source, how would the requests from your laptop go UP to the router? It is important to keep in the mind the reciprocity rule -- whatever directional characteristics an antenna has during transmission, it has during reception as well.

The strongest radiation of a vertical antenna in free space is a horizontal doughnut. If the vertical antenna is near a reflective ground (earth, car roof, etc) the doughnut will be tipped upward (these are horizontal cross-sections):

 

[hggomes]

Since you dont wanna answer, there it is:

Don't think i dont undertand what your are trying to say, but i guess you are missing the point here. Should they have installed them on the ground instead?

Salut.

 

[RMerlin]

Main reason for recommending to elevate is so you can avoid all the obstacles that often lies in the direct line of sight of the antennas. That's always highly situational, and depends on one's actual environment. A router located on the ground would have to deal with all kind of obstacles, including tables and chairs.

 

[dlandiss]

Since you dont wanna answer, there it is:

Ah, but you have changed one factor and added another:

1) Those antennas are now OUTSIDE of all those tall buildings and the height thus helps them avoid absorbtion/reflection from those. INSIDE of a building there are pipes, ducts and wiring on all floors, so that advantage no longer exists.

2) I will rent the roof of my building for a lot less money than my front yard.

I recommend studying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pattern before believing the popular press.

 

[hggomes]

It's not really a matter of believe im afraid.

 

[kvic]

When sky is the limit, who's telling people roof top is high?
Btw, those in the last photo don't look like cellular antenna to me..

 

[L&LD]

My experience directly reflects what hggomes is trying to convey, contrary to what books might have to say on the subject.

Speaking directly of WiFi coverage, signal strength and throughput, selecting a location for the router that has the antennae at least 10' or higher above ground level (not floor level) and free from immediate surrounding obstacles by at least three feet (if possible) and as close to the center of the area to be covered (in 3D) has the most positive effects. All else being equal, lowering the router's antennae significantly closer than that 10 feet (approx.) to ground level gives a much worse experience for the area covered (even if it may help clients connected directly above or below it).

The theory gets us a basic understanding. Leg work (and I've put in a few miles) is what takes us the rest of the way when trying to implement the tech optimally.

Not arguing what the theory states. Just stating the fact that we can't take all the theory into consideration and design a good or great network 'on paper'. These basic guidelines (above) have proven themselves over and over in actual installations.

 

[dlandiss]

The theory gets us a basic understanding. Leg work (and I've put in a few miles) is what takes us the rest of the way when trying to implement the tech optimally.

Not arguing what the theory states. Just stating the fact that we can't take all the theory into consideration and design a good or great network 'on paper'. These basic guidelines (above) have proven themselves over and over in actual installations.

Quite so, and the radiation patterns tend to be for "free space" antennas (except for the one for antennas at various wavelengths above the ground). Fortunately at 2.4GHz even 1 meter above ground is already 8 wavelengths, so that is approaching "free space."

Your point about indoor installations requiring legwork is also quite true. But if we started as a general principal with the mindset that "radio waves spread out and down from their source" we will cost ourselves unneeded time and frustration. Our biggest challenge with home routers is that the homeowners want everything in the basement so they do not have to look at it -- and in the furnace room, of course, with all of those HVAC ducts. And then they complain that they have no signal on the third floor..........

With a typical (free-space) vertical -3dB beamwidth of about 30 degrees, one does not want to plan on a basement router reaching the second floor, let alone the third<G>. Although the pattern is invariably altered by household reflections and internal walls, picturing the doughnut as a starting point at least saves the installer from a lot of needless stair-climbing.

 

[L&LD]

dlandiss,

I was not commenting on the radio waves spreading downwards (they go in all directions equally, in free space and with a point source antennae ).

I was commenting on the fact that mere height of the router or antennae location is the greatest benefit I have seen.

Yes, indoors, the reflections take the ideal and make it something like a far side cartoon. But that one fact (nothing absorbs radio waves more than mother earth) is the overriding 'tip' I give to people on a daily basis.

 

[dlandiss]

I was not commenting on the radio waves spreading downwards (they go in all directions equally, in free space and with a point source antennae ).

I am glad to see that you have corrected your previous claim on this issue.

I'll offer another "real world" experience to this thread. I live in a 113-year-old house with very thick brick walls. About 60 feet behind the house is a similarly-built carriage house whose second floor I wished to serve with WiFi.

My first attempt was an RT-N66U in a ground floor window of the main building, facing the carriage house. Like most installers I oriented the antennas vertically. Connectivity in the carriage house was spotty.

So I tipped the top of the antennas back about 10 degrees so a line drawn at right angles to their length intercepted the carriage house second floor. The signal inside the carriage house, 60 feet north, through its brick walls, rose to -50dB -- a nice solid connection. By tipping the antennas 10 degrees I tipped the "doughnut" by the same amount.

 

[kvic]

@dlandiss Interesting anecdote of the carriage house. In this particular case, if you place half of a coke can somewhere behind your tipped antenna, won't you get an even stronger signal?

 

[dlandiss]

@dlandiss Interesting anecdote of the carriage house. In this particular case, if you place half of a coke can somewhere behind your tipped antenna, won't you get an even stronger signal?

A parabolic reflector would be even better, but fortunately is not required -- especially since my wife would not be happy about it in our living room<G>.

With proper attention to antennas 2.4GHz WiFi can travel great distances. In 2005, QST Magazine reported at length on experiments by ham radio operators in Virginia that resulted in two-way communications over a 56-mile link with off-the-shelf consumer-grade equipment:

http://www.palosverdes.com/pvarc/files/Wifi/QST_Jul_2005_p35-41.pdf.

Even greater distance have been reached with somewhat bigger antennas.