WAP Postion

[coxhaus]

I have a Cisco WAP321 in the front of my house. If I lay it flat I get reduced speed in my kitchen. If I turn it on edge I have full speed. I guess they are designed to run on the wall or ceiling. Is this normal for APs? Do they run poorly laying flat or is it something in my kitchen wall?

I noticed Tim tests all his wireless devices laying flat.

 

[L&LD]

Orientation can make a big difference in performance as you have noticed.

The design part that matters is how the antennae are tuned. For your devices in the kitchen, they are not tuned optimally when flat.

Did you try to rotate the WAP on it's axis (by 30 degrees for each test) when flat and test for differences then?

 

[thiggins]

I have a Cisco WAP321 in the front of my house. If I lay it flat I get reduced speed in my kitchen. If I turn it on edge I have full speed. I guess they are designed to run on the wall or ceiling. Is this normal for APs? Do they run poorly laying flat or is it something in my kitchen wall?

I noticed Tim tests all his wireless devices laying flat.

When testing devices with internal antennas, I try to check to make sure that the test position doesn't adversely affect results. For example, when testing APs, I try a few heights to make sure that I'm not in an antenna pattern null.

Note also the device under test is rotated 360 degrees (one axis only, of course) during the 90 second test.

 

[stevech]

Body-block too. Your watery body in the RF path costs about 6-10dB at 2.4GHz and about 5dB more at 5GHz

 

[sfx2000]

Body-block too. Your watery body in the RF path costs about 6-10dB at 2.4GHz and about 5dB more at 5GHz

Nice...

5 dB at 850 MHz, similar at 1900 - 2.4GHz is interesting, and you're numbers are about right - we're all bags of water... it's the resonant frequency of H2O (2.4Ghz)

 

[coxhaus]

I will keep body block in mind when I sit on the picnic table. I know I have set with my back to the window with no problems. I guess I should think about raising the WAP321 up to the top corner of the window instead of the bottom corner to help over come the body block.

 

[stevech]

Happens too with cell phones, esp. 3G at 1900MHz.
And now, LTE+ (AWS) 1700MHz.
Whereas most LTE (Verizon) is 700MHz which was a big improvement in building penetration.

 

[coxhaus]

I know the brick on the outside of my house blocks the 5GHz signal. That is why I had to put a WAP321 in the window so I could get a good signal outside.

 

[sfx2000]

Cisco usually offers beam patterns for their AP's - have you checked their Support site?

 

[coxhaus]

I think I am good with 3 Cisco WAP321 units unless I get a wild hair to add the garage area. I am not sure how you would add a beam pattern to a WAP321. Do you move the wires which are the antenna inside the unit?

 

[sfx2000]

I think I am good with 3 Cisco WAP321 units unless I get a wild hair to add the garage area. I am not sure how you would add a beam pattern to a WAP321. Do you move the wires which are the antenna inside the unit?

Not adding a beam pattern - Cisco has the antenna patterns available for all their WAP's - might be in your documentation somewhere, or their support team can provide the info.

sfx

 

[coxhaus]

It took me a while figuring out placement of WAP321 on 5GHz. I used what I had figured out previously for my 2.4GHz placements. I ended up using the 2.4GHz placement with it being just a little closer together. Adding a third WAP321 for outside filled in the inside as well as the units were just a little closer and the coverage on the back of the house was a little lite until I added the 3rd unit. The problem I had in the front was with WAP321 laying flat. I did not have good coverage in front until I turned the front WAP321 on its' edge. This is probably related to the beam pattern of the WAP321 units. I only turned it on its' edge because it was a better fit. I guess you call it luck. But after my luck it was easy to switch over to 5 GHz house wide.