Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: osi...@deltaville.net (Michael Erskine)
Newsgroups: alt.internet.wireless
Subject: Re: Wi-Fi / poor coverage
Date: 11 Jan 2003 19:26:33 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <e59f93b2.0301111926.636b13f5@posting.google.com>
References: <nhHR9.563305$%m4.165616@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> <3E1FA9C6.4F72F31E@bellsouth.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.122.24.193
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1042341993 19718 127.0.0.1 (12 Jan 2003 03:26:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Jan 2003 03:26:33 GMT

PaulL <lindyc...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<3E1FA9C6.4F72F31E@bellsouth.net>...
> Having said all that, the tech guy was totally right about location:
> these routers are ultra-sensitive to location and I found that
> differences in postion of even 4-5 inches, especially vertically, can
> significantly affect signal strength.  But ultimately I came up short
> --until I built the reflector.  If you set up a computer and a router,
> you can build one of these.  email if you want and I'll send you a
> picture of mine.
> 
> It's actually kind of fun: go for it.  Kudos to michael erskine: these
> darn things are the best kept "secret" in the wireless world :-)

I should add only that the tech guy (and PaulR) is correct.  Vertical
positioning of your system above *ANY* surface even with a reflector,
can make a significant, even a crucial differenct.  It seems to me
that one wavelength above any surface is a good figure.  Get the thing
up on a 5" pedistal and you will get a better signal.

-m-