|
|
 |
|
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:
| Topic: | A great article about Wireless Network Design This thread has 28 replies. Displaying posts 16 through 29. |
|
| Post 16 made on Saturday January 26, 2013 at 19:39 |
tweeterguy Loyal Member |
Joined:
Posts: | June 2005
7,713 |
|
|
On January 26, 2013 at 19:03, jag_man653 said...
Any other advice anyonehere can throw my way would be appreciated. Run a cat 5/6 cable from your router to the TV.
|
|
| Post 17 made on Sunday January 27, 2013 at 00:38 |
Tom Ciaramitaro Loyal Member |
Joined:
Posts: | May 2002
7,851 |
|
|
On January 26, 2013 at 19:39, tweeterguy said...
Run a cat 5/6 cable from your router to the TV. Done. Or cheat and try a powerline adapter - only if cable can't be run.
|
There is no truth anymore. Only assertions. The internet world has no interest in truth, only vindication for preconceived assumptions. |
|
| Post 18 made on Sunday January 27, 2013 at 03:18 |
amirm Advanced Member |
Joined:
Posts: | December 2008
780 |
|
|
On January 26, 2013 at 19:03, jag_man653 said...
I'm not a professional in this area, but found value in this thread nonethless. I'm struggling with getting a reliable WiFi signal at my new Samsung SmartTV. Among the challenges are (a) having only 2.6 Mbps DSL service from AT&T, (b) my Linksys EA4500 router is at the other end of the house, and (c) my neighbor has U-Verse and apparently has a 2Wire420 router across the property line but less than 10 feet from my TV. The signal from her router is MUCH stronger than from my own router near my TV ! The Samsung won't connect to my router's 5 Ghz network at all, probably because Samsung didn't waste an $ on the built-in WiFi adapter. I assume the difficulty the TV has connecting to the 2.4 GHz network is due to interference with the neighbor's. I've now switched to from channel 1 to 11, hoping that will help. Any other advice anyonehere can throw my way would be appreciated. One other thing is polarization. WiFi signals are either horizontal or vertical. The receiver orientation must match the transmitter or you will suffer from substantial losses. If the antenna can be rotated, do that and see if it makes a difference. Ditto for your access point.
|
Amir Founder, Madrona Digital, http://madronadigital.comFounder, Audio Science Review, http://audiosciencereview.com |
|
| Post 19 made on Sunday January 27, 2013 at 11:50 |
jag_man653 Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | January 2005
100 |
|
|
On January 26, 2013 at 19:39, tweeterguy said...
Run a cat 5/6 cable from your router to the TV. I might have to do that. Not easy though, as I don't like exposed cables. Thanks, Ed
|
Ed S |
|
| Post 20 made on Sunday January 27, 2013 at 11:52 |
jag_man653 Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | January 2005
100 |
|
|
On January 27, 2013 at 03:18, amirm said...
One other thing is polarization. WiFi signals are either horizontal or vertical. The receiver orientation must match the transmitter or you will suffer from substantial losses. If the antenna can be rotated, do that and see if it makes a difference. Ditto for your access point. My Linksys router has no external antenna. It's not designed to stand vertical, as the TV is. I'll try propping the router vertical, or maybe attache it to the wall. Thanks, Ed
|
Ed S |
|
| Post 21 made on Sunday January 27, 2013 at 11:53 |
jag_man653 Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | January 2005
100 |
|
|
On January 27, 2013 at 00:38, Tom Ciaramitaro said...
Done.
Or cheat and try a powerline adapter - only if cable can't be run. I've avoided those since I currently use X10 for light control in the house. Thanks, Ed
|
Ed S |
|
| Post 22 made on Monday January 28, 2013 at 04:01 |
Mario Loyal Member |
Joined:
Posts: | November 2006
5,680 |
|
|
If you can't run wire, then the powerline links actually do work.
Or you could setup a bridge and you might get better results.
|
|
|
| Post 23 made on Monday January 28, 2013 at 04:03 |
Mario Loyal Member |
Joined:
Posts: | November 2006
5,680 |
|
|
Amir, not to nitpick on an excellent explanation, but you did mean to say 2.437 Gigahertz, not "2.437 Megahartz", right?
|
|
|
| Post 24 made on Monday January 28, 2013 at 04:18 |
tweeterguy Loyal Member |
Joined:
Posts: | June 2005
7,713 |
|
|
On January 28, 2013 at 04:03, Mario said...
Amir, not to nitpick on an excellent explanation, but you did mean to say 2.437 Gigahertz, not "2.437 Megahartz", right? No, he meant MHz. He's referring to specific channel frequency (i.e. Channel 6) within the 2.4GHz band for 802.11 wifi. I think he misplaced the decimal. Same thing eh?
Last edited by tweeterguy on January 28, 2013 04:26.
|
|
| Post 25 made on Monday January 28, 2013 at 04:35 |
Mario Loyal Member |
Joined:
Posts: | November 2006
5,680 |
|
|
On January 28, 2013 at 04:18, tweeterguy said...
No, he meant MHz. He's referring to specific channel frequency (i.e. Channel 6) within the 2.4GHz band for 802.11 wifi. I think he misplaced the decimal. Same thing eh? The width of each channel is 84.5 MHz. Channel 6 is 2437 MHz or 2.437GHz. Again, it's almost splitting hair, but ... 
|
|
|
| Post 26 made on Monday January 28, 2013 at 13:52 |
amirm Advanced Member |
Joined:
Posts: | December 2008
780 |
|
|
On January 28, 2013 at 04:03, Mario said...
Amir, not to nitpick on an excellent explanation, but you did mean to say 2.437 Gigahertz, not "2.437 Megahartz", right? Nitpick away :). I made the correction in the original post.
|
Amir Founder, Madrona Digital, http://madronadigital.comFounder, Audio Science Review, http://audiosciencereview.com |
|
| Post 27 made on Tuesday January 29, 2013 at 14:18 |
jag_man653 Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | January 2005
100 |
|
|
On January 28, 2013 at 04:01, Mario said...
If you can't run wire, then the powerline links actually do work.
Or you could setup a bridge and you might get better results. I'm having the cat5 cable pulled today (decided I'm too old to be crawling around in the attic!). I'll soon know if that helps. Would you mind explaining what is meant by "a bridge?" Are you talking about a second router, or a WiFi booster, or what? Thanks
|
Ed S |
|
| Post 28 made on Tuesday January 29, 2013 at 16:17 |
jcbremotes Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | October 2006
412 |
|
|
 In this case a bridge is a unit that uses a wifi link to another wap or wifi router and a cat 5/6 connection to a client(s) making a bridge between the client(s) and the rest of the network. I'm using a few here out of necessicity. A couple of homeowners installed solar panels on their boathouses. The system has an ethernet only devices that polls & reports statistics and status to a cloud based user interface. I'm using some ubiquiti products that have performed flawlessly. They bridge the boathouse to the main house over a few hundred feet.
Last edited by jcbremotes on January 29, 2013 16:33.
|
|
| Post 29 made on Monday February 4, 2013 at 14:21 |
Ernie Gilman Yes, That Ernie! |
Joined:
Posts: | December 2001
30,076 |
|
|
I just looked up this thread again to follow up on another issue and I noticed something I did not see before. On January 25, 2013 at 15:16, tweeterguy said...
Because with 2.4GHz in North America, 1,6,11 are the only non-overlapping channels. 2,3,4,5 will all overlap with both channels 1 and 6 at the same time. 7,8,9,10 will all overlap with both channels 6 and 11 at the same time. Here's what I realized. If the above is true, rearranging the information: 1 will overlap with 2, 3, 4,and 5 (that's 4 conflicts); 11 will overlap with 7, 8, 9, and 10 (that's four conflicts); 6 will overlap with 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 (that's eight conflicts). Therefore only 1 and 11 should be used. Unless, of course, there is some other kind of RF usage of the frequencies immediately outside 1 through 11 that makes 1 and 11 a bad choice. We have no information here about that. Why would 6 ever be a choice? 6 is default in many devices that neighbors could be on if they don't set up them properly. It's better to have conflict with one channel than two in a crowded 2.4GHz space...with anything other than 1,6,11 you're likely to conflict with two channels at the same time. Again, 6 seems to be the worst choice. ASSuming there is equal separation, by frequency, of channels, 7 and 5 are just as bad as 6, and the closer you get to 1 or 11, the fewer overlaps there are.
|
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw |
|
 |
Before you can reply to a message... |
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now. |
Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.
|
|
