Is there any such thing as a passive wifi repeater?

[paste...@gmail.com]

There is a zone of disillusionment in my garden which I would like to
sort. The WiFi access point is about 2.5 metres off the ground, and
raising it to the top of the house is a no-go (I'm assuming that having
the WiFi aerials higher up would sort this problem) so the next thing I
thought of was a passive repeater.

Any help / constructive ridicule gratefully recieved.

[Tim+]

What, you mean like this?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/300734843532

I believe this kind of repeater will have your data rate but maybe that
wouldn't matter.

Tim

[paste...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 20:07:33 UTC+1, Tim+ wrote:

> What, you mean like this?
>
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/300734843532
>
> I believe this kind of repeater will have your data rate but maybe that
> wouldn't matter.

Cheers, but no. I was thinking of something that wouldn't need a power supply.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <1daef7da-4e2f-45ef...@googlegroups.com>,
paste...@gmail.com writes

Google seems to provide lots of hits.
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=wifi+passive+repeater
--
Ian

[paste...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 20:50:30 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Google seems to provide lots of hits.
>
> https://www.google.co.uk/#q=wifi+passive+repeater

Yup, done that, but as it's a subject I know nowt about, I would like to
hear some wise words from people I trust to have some sort of working
knowledge on the subject!

[Ian Jackson]

In message <8e5d4da1-f695-443f...@googlegroups.com>,
paste...@gmail.com writes

Well, a passive repeater can sometimes help when the transmitter can't
'see' the receiver (usually because there's a substantial obstruction in
the way. It usually consists of two aerials connected back-to-back with
coax (routed around or over the obstruction), with the aerials
positioned so that one can see the transmitter, and the other can see
the receiver. Obviously there's scope for a lot of experimentation! But
personally I'd go for the sort of active repeater already suggested. I
fitted one for a friend (to enable the signal to get from one end to the
other of a fairly long, rambling house), and with the repeater located
halfway between the ends, it seems to be working well.
--
Ian

[Peter Crosland]

Speaking with my amateur radio hat on and some of some forty years
experimenting with aerials it really is one of those things that you are
not really going to know until you try it. Moving the aerials a few
inches can make all the difference. Putting the Wi-Fi antenna higher is
unlikely to make much difference. What you might consider is an external
antenna connected to the Wi-fi by a cable. eBay item number 400380185315
works OK and is quite cheap.

--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[Graham.]

I seriously doubt you would get any increase in signal compared with
the direct signal. Not quite as bad as a perpetual motion machine, but
getting there.

Where it would possibly work is where the dead spot is fairly close to
the source, but can't receive it because it's say in a cellar, then
back to back aerials with low loss co-ax may put sufficient signal
into the cellar if your receiver is close enough to the aerial. Can
you see that this is not the same as increasing the range outside?

I'm sure Bill has mentioned he has had success with this.

I have wondered if store displays of sat-navs could be demonstrated
indoors using this method.

I'm sure Bill has

--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[Paul taylor]

Don't forget that wifi transports tcp/ip, its a bi directional thing.
Best go for an active repeater.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sun, 18 May 2014 00:52:38 +0100, Paul taylor <tayl...@nopost.com> wrote:

> Don't forget that wifi transports tcp/ip, its a bi directional thing.
> Best go for an active repeater.

I think you'll find it transports any data packets you give it.
They don't have to be TCP/IP you know...

[Graham.]

On Sun, 18 May 2014 00:52:38 +0100, Paul taylor <tayl...@nopost.com>
wrote:

>

>Don't forget that wifi transports tcp/ip, its a bi directional thing.
>Best go for an active repeater.

Yes I was aware I was using the word receiver, but even in the context
of WAP to wireless NIC, the power levels wil be reciprocal so if the
passive repeater works in one direction it will work in the other too.

But as you say a conventional active repeater is the way forward.
Solar powered perhaps?


--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[Bill Wright]

Graham. wrote:

> I'm sure Bill has mentioned he has had success with this.

Only with a big fat amplifier between the two aerials.

Bill

[Brian Gaff]

There used to be a gadget for cars that was supposed to pass signals through
the windscreen to an aerial, That was never very good. I suppose the problem
is not so much the received signal by the remote unit, but the feeble signal
put out by your remote device, not getting back to the router.
I have seen signals be altered by passive means, if a big wall is in the
way, but at best its a bit hit and miss, and at worst, snake oil.

If you cannot move the router, can you extend the feeder and put the aerial
outside?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
<paste...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d6e4681-b012-4d1f...@googlegroups.com...

[Brian Gaff]

One of the other issues to think about is interference. Often its not lack
of signal that scuppers the connection, its other devices and routers in the
vicinity clobbering the signal from the laptop or whatever in a certain area
where its closer to the other device on the same channel.

Brian


--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xye1rSFG...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...

[Brian Gaff]

But surely you need two amps one for each direction?

In my experience it seems that the problem is the return, not the routers
own signal though, so i guess one that way might help a bit.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:ll94m8$umn$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 11:55:54 -0700 (PDT), paste...@gmail.com wrote:

If it's feasible to get an ethernet cable to a window that faces the
garden, you may need nothing more than an extra access point on the
windowledge. Unlike a wireless-to-wireless repeater it'll carry the
full data rate. You might also try augmenting its performence with a
parabolic reflector made out of foil-backed cardboard. Google
"cardboard wi-fi reflector" to see the sort of thing I mean.

Rod.

[Johny B Good]

Another search term to use would be "Wok Antenna". At WiFi
frequencies (2.4 and 5 GHz), a proper 'traditional' Chinese wok has an
almost perfect parabolic shape and gains of 20db or so are readily
achieved.

The usual use is to create 20Km or so point to point links (wok
antennas at each end) using USB wifi sticks mounted at the focal point
of the wok.

You can locate the WiFi sticks up to 25 metres away from the USB port
by using up to the maximum of 4 USB repeaters with 5 metre lengths of
USB cables (maximum lengths allowed). It's done that way since it
eliminates cable losses at the 2.4 and 5 GHz frequenies used which
would otherwise cancel most of the antenna gain.

Passive back to back antenna 'repeaters' work best when trying to
direct a very strong signal at a ridge location down into a completely
dead valley zone. The reciprocity law suggest that this might also
extend the reach of WiFi signals under similar conditions (very strong
wifi at the edge of an obstruction that's otherwise blocking the
signal into the shaded zone).

Effectively, it's equivilent to using a mirror to reflect signals
'around an obstruction'. The key thing here is to minimise feeder loss
between the antennas which, in a passive system, can be reduced to a
matter of inches (no amplifier gain to introduce 'Howl Round'
problems).

The scenario where this is most likely to work is the one where a
very strong wifi signal is available at the ridge tiles on a building
where the materials used for the structure shields the interior
from an already weaker field on the lower floor levels.

In this case, a chimney mounted dish could be linked by a few metres
of low loss co-ax to a similar downward pointing wok antenna in the
loft (or just below the topmost floor ceiling if foil backed
plasterboard has been used in the building's construction).

Wooden floors offer less attenuation to WiFi compared to brick walls
assuming no further foil backed plasterboard is used for the
intervening ceilings). If the desired WAP signal can be received via
this passive antenna repeater arrangment, there's a very good chance
it will provide a bothway link.

No guarantees on account of any competing signals which may exist at
the distant WAP's location which probably won't show up at your end of
the link. If your remote WAP is situated in a WiFi 'dead zone' (no
immediate neighbours with WiFi), this shouldn't be an issue.

A passive setup is worth trying since it's such an uncomplicated
system (no power or howl round issues to worry about). The time to add
amplifiers can come later.

If amplifiers are needed, the short wavelengths and highly direction
antennas should allow you duplicate the antenna arangement for each
direction and make use of space diversirty to prevent 'howl around'
and eliminate transciever switching issues - the amps can be
permanently active in each unidirectional repeater link.

It's only when you can't provide the required seperation distance
between the up and down links that you need to add the complications
of a store and forward 'range extender' WAP which will reduce the
throughput of the system to about a third of the maximum available on
a direct link. In this case, it's a matter of (to paraphrase) "A third
of a loaf is better than none." and this may be the most effective
(possibly the only) solution - no climbing onto roofs to mount a 50cm
diameter wok antenna or run co-ax, just a case of finding a suitable
spot indoors to mount the repeater.
--
Regards, J B Good

[Bill Wright]

Brian Gaff wrote:
> But surely you need two amps one for each direction?

When I've done this it's been UHF and one direction only.

Bill

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Graham." <m...@privicy.net> wrote in message
news:3jlfn9h9gs9i6tm01...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 17 May 2014 11:55:54 -0700 (PDT), paste...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>There is a zone of disillusionment in my garden which I would like to
>>sort. The WiFi access point is about 2.5 metres off the ground, and
>>raising it to the top of the house is a no-go (I'm assuming that having
>>the WiFi aerials higher up would sort this problem) so the next thing I
>>thought of was a passive repeater.
>>
>>Any help / constructive ridicule gratefully recieved.
>
>
> I seriously doubt you would get any increase in signal compared with
> the direct signal. Not quite as bad as a perpetual motion machine, but
> getting there.

It uses different channels for the two links, so perfectly feasible.

One that works without power - now that's is perpetual motion machine.

[Paul D Smith]

wrote in message
news:5d6e4681-b012-4d1f...@googlegroups.com...

+++++++++++
Single story property? I ask because many of the 'higher gain' external
antenna (the ones that are about 6-9inches and screw onto the router) swap
what is effectively a spherical pattern on the original antenna for a donut
so 'in the plane' you get better coverage but 'above' you might lose out.

I replaced the standard antenna on my router with a higher gain one and it
was just enough to stretch all around where I needed it. That might be
enough for you.

If you have a newer box, you can probably also replace the internal antenna,
which I imagine are onmidirectional, with more directional ones if you don't
mind opening up. Most boxes have standard hardware with the antenna
socketed to the WiFi board. Solwise (no connection - just bought stuff from
them) have various connectors/pigtails etc.

Paul DS.

[Vir Campestris]

On 17/05/2014 22:36, Peter Crosland wrote:
> Moving the aerials a few inches can make all the difference.

I've been sent out to my shed with the PC (OK, it's quite a posh shed!)
and I found I got no wi-fi at all. Until I put the router on a coffee
table, instead of the floor.

The only time it's cut out since I decided to reboot my machine (it was
doing updates). I then got a frantic call from my wife who was sitting
in darkness as the lights had tripped - which is why the router had gone
off...

(2 circuits in the house, and a separate breaker for out here)

ANdy

[tony sayer]

In article <OIqdnefR1L1B_OfO...@brightview.co.uk>, Vir
Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus

Correct me if I'm wrong but to recap is there mains power at the end of
the area or where it you want to improve reception?..

--
Tony Sayer

[PeeGee]

A possibility might be something like tp-link tl-wr702n, which is usb
powered, but it would need "rain-proofing" and a rechargeable (solar?)
power source!!!

--
PeeGee

"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

[tony sayer]

In article <fM2dnUdikc6ex-HO...@brightview.co.uk>, PeeGee
<trie...@yahoo.co.uk> scribeth thus

>On 17/05/14 19:55, paste...@gmail.com wrote:
>> There is a zone of disillusionment in my garden which I would like to
>> sort. The WiFi access point is about 2.5 metres off the ground, and
>> raising it to the top of the house is a no-go (I'm assuming that having
>> the WiFi aerials higher up would sort this problem) so the next thing I
>> thought of was a passive repeater.
>>
>> Any help / constructive ridicule gratefully recieved.
>>
>
>A possibility might be something like tp-link tl-wr702n, which is usb
>powered, but it would need "rain-proofing" and a rechargeable (solar?)
>power source!!!
>

Give Solwise a bell they will have a router or access point that you can
put a Yagi or similar aerial thereon.

Else use a 5.8 Ghz capable unit to link to another in the garden shed
assuming it can get power to convert it back to 2.4Ghz .

Already done that at a location and it works very well:)...


--
Tony Sayer