Well... it depends. (Depends on what, you ask...) It depends on the distance - the total distance from one radio to the passive repeater and then to the other radio. Briefly put: a) The good news - A passive repeater can help you fill in or extend coverage to an area that has a blocked line-of-sight path. This could be helpful say, in NYC where you need coverage around a corner, for example. b) The bad news - The signal loss with a passive repeater is very high. With low power license-free 802.11b equipment (unlike licensed microwave equipment) we can't just increase the power to make up for the passive repeater losses. Unless the total end-to-end distance is very short, the passive repeater losses mean that not enough signal will reach the far end.
In conclusion, if you do decide to experiment with a passive repeater, I'd suggest using not a single flat plane (like in your embedded link) but a pair of high-gain 2.4 GHz antennas connected back-to-back with a short length of low-loss coax. If you need more help calculating the actual amount of signal that will make it to the far end (the link budget), get hold of me off-line. jack evilbunny wrote: > Hello ptp, > > passive repeaters anyone? > > http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/pics/passive_repeater.jpg > > -- > Best regards, > evilbunny mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.NodeDB.com/NodeDB/sslinfo.php - Free Security Certificates -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) President - Wireless InfoNet, Inc. (818) 227-4220 The first and only vendor-neutral Wireless ISP workshop. http://www.ask-wi.com/2002workshops.html -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
