802.11: Time to clear up some antenna misconceptions

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jul 12, 2013
1,011
10
0
#1
802.11: Time to clear up some antenna misconceptions

By Michael Kassner

Antennas for the most part are ignored. That's too bad as they have a huge impact on whether a Wi-Fi link works well or not.

This article is due in part to a recent experience I had with a new client. Needless to say, he had some erroneous notions about how Radio Frequency (RF) propagation worked.

I'll admit, it's hard to visualize how electromagnetic radiation acts when it exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties, and propagates in three dimensions. Still, understanding the fundamentals is simpler than most people think.

As funny as it sounds, all it takes is a balloon. Many years ago, while studying for my first amateur radio license, one of my mentors handed me a balloon, telling me to inflate it. Ignoring the quizzical look of a sixteen year old, he then proceeded to explain RF propagation.

Isotropic radiator


Understanding RF radiation begins with the concept of an isotropic radiator. The Sun and the results of the Big Bang Theory are both real-world examples of isotropic radiators.



When it comes to antennas, an isotropic radiator is theoretical. So, imagine a RF source emitting electromagnetic
radiation in three dimensions with equal intensity and 100 percent efficient. At first, I didn't get it. My mentor told me the spherical shape of the balloon represents an isotropic radiator, with the balloon's surface being where RF radiation stops. OK, that works.

dBi


One more theoretical construct needs to be understood. That is Decibels (isotropic) or dBi. It is the gain in radiation intensity of an antenna when compared to the isotropic radiator. Here is the tricky part. Think of my balloon again and imagine that the air inside is RF energy. There is a set amount, so how does an antenna achieve gain? It does by concentrating the RF energy. Looking at some real-world antennas will help explain.

The ubiquitous dipole antenna



The 15 cm long vertical element you see on most Wi-Fi equipment is actually a dipole antenna. It consists of two elements and is popular because of its omnidirectional radiation pattern. It has approximately two dBi gain over the isotropic radiator. Let's see why that is.

The dipole schematic (courtesy of Wikipedia) hints at how the gain is achieved. Let's take my balloon once again and squeeze it in the center as shown in the image. The air/energy inside the balloon is forced into a different shape. This shape is representative of the dipole antenna radiation pattern.



Notice the balloon is longer, that would be considered gain in directions perpendicular to the axis of the antenna. The amount of energy is the same, it's just being redirected. The following antenna radiation diagram is of a typical dipole.



More power, Scotty

Looking at antenna specifications, you may have noticed that similar antenna styles have different dBi ratings. Ever wonder how that works?

Back to the balloon; it's still simulating a dipole antenna, but let's squeeze the balloon between two pieces of cardboard. Notice how it gets longer, that's additional gain. Did you also notice there is less vertical coverage? The next radiation diagram shows what's going on.



Client's first mistake



This is how my client started getting into trouble. His Wi-Fi router was in the center of the building and offices along the outer walls were not connecting. He bought two antennas similar to the one shown here and was pleased as the offices with weak reception were now connecting.

Guess what, computers on the second floor right above the router lost access to the network. That's because dipole antennas achieve gain by squishing the radiation pattern along the axis of the antenna. They are still omnidirectional, but only in the space perpendicular to the axis of the antenna as shown in the radiation diagrams. So, does he need more gain?

Directional antennas



Enter directional antennas, they are the power houses when it comes to gain. Once again the balloon easily depicts the radiation pattern. Satellite TV dishes are an example of directional antennas.

As you can guess, to increase gain, direction antennas further restrict the radiation pattern. In fact, the pattern is no longer omnidirectional along either axis of the antenna. Notice in the radiation diagram below, there is only one chart. That's because the pattern is the same for elevation and azimuth.



Client's second mistake

I bet you're wondering if I was going to get back to my client. He thought he still needed more power. So on the recommendation of a salesperson, he bought two panel (directional) antennas. Their logic was the building would be fully covered by pointing the antennas in opposite directions.

Can you figure out what problems this caused? Now additional people on the second floor were complaining of lost connections. We know that's because directional antennas radiate less in the vertical plane when compared to dipole antennas. But, why were people on the first floor complaining of slow connections?

MIMO and Multipath

I was remiss in not mentioning the client's network was built with 802.11n equipment. I'll bet you can see where this is going. By using directional antennas, my client lost two of the best features of 802.11n, MIMO and multipath propagation.

802.11n leverages something called multipath interference. It does this by using multiple signal streams and conditioning the disparate feeds into a stronger more reliable signal at the receiver. That's why some of my client's employees whose computers had RF Non-Line of Sight to the Wi-Fi router were able to make a connection. But, that ability goes away when directional antennas are used.

Final thoughts


Setting up Wi-Fi networks so they meet expectations can be challenging. Knowing a bit about RF propagation and how antennas work should be one of the first steps, not an after thought.

For a well-written explanation of basic antenna principals and radiation diagrams, check out Dr. Trevor Marshall's article Antennas enhance WLAN security. I also want to thank the fellow hams at Force 12, Inc for allowing me to use their balloon pictures.
 

breno785au

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2013
6,002
765
113
39
Australia
#3
Good article, thanjs,! Might I ask why the link to speedtest?
 
Jul 12, 2013
1,011
10
0
#4
Benchmarking Network Speed

Speedtest is a 'baseline' internet throughput speed benchmarking program.

I recently upgraded my wireless home networking setup. Previously I was using an 802.11G 54mbit/s wireless router. Internet download speeds on my wireless computers were 'topped out' at 1.3mbyte/s.

I do have one 'hard-wired' 802.11 1000mbit/s NIC computer that is connected directly into the router at 100mbit/s. Comcast which is my ISP has a maximum download speed of 28mbit/s and a maximum upload speed of 5.8mbit/s. With the hardwired computer, my internet download speeds were 3.5mbyte/s and upload speeds are 700kbyte/s.

My "best bang for the buck" dilemma in choosing a new router took the form of researching frequency types (2.4ghz vs 5ghz), and networking specifications, 802.11 N300-N900 or AC. The first article I posted in this thread was something I found in my research that I thought others might benefit from.

On researching routers, one of the things I was looking for was stability...unfortunately in some areas (proximity to other networks) this comes at a premium. My G router, with two computers downloading Youtubes or various files simultaneously, the router would reset itself 3-4 times a day (very annoying), which would result in a download pause of 30s to 1m before downloads resumed. I really wanted to avoid this problem in the future but again, "best bang for the buck."

The "dream router" that I had settled on was $126 dollars, and though it wasn't the highest performing, it was all I really needed. It's throughput speeds should have equalled or exceeded the hard drive speeds in the laptops, however, I currently have an N300 NIC in my HTPC. I also have some budget factory installed N150 and N300 (1x1/2x2) NIC's in the laptops so the maximum LAN wireless speed I was going to see was only 300mbit anyway...or so I thought.

The question is...do I spend $130 for a router and another $150 +/- to upgrade all the NIC's in my computers?

Assuming I was willing to take on the financial and hardware installation aspects...what would the real world benefit really be?

My ISP is only 'feeding me' 3.5mbyte/s...do I really need an N900 or AC1900 superspeed networking setup?

Upon researching further, I discovered that the newer AC spec doesn't seem to be as well supported under Linux as the N specification...so even if I bought an AC router/NIC I wouldn't be able to use it.

After weighing the pros and cons to various questions, and researching until my brain was rebooting itself at regular intervals due to excessive overheating...

Long story short, I settled on a basic N300 Asus RT-N12 D1 that Newegg was doing a promotional on. (I have a feeling they were getting rid of older stock)

This router was on sale with a free USB wireless NIC for $40 dollars. Newegg does have some great 'closeout' deals sometimes.

It just so happens that the sale item had mixed reviews (poor connectivity/failures) which I was very concerned about, however, the price was right and Newegg does have an excellent return policy. One thing with reviews...some people write poor reviews on products not realizing that it's something else in their setup that was causing the problem (incompatibilities) so I like to really measure reviews from a few different sites...and I rarely trust the big sites like PCMag or CNet...they have been known to promote products through reviews to get kickbacks from manufacturers. The 'grunt in the trench' reviews are the reviews I like best...

Now on to the results...

An N300 (2x2) router/NIC should theoretically deliver 300bit/8byte=37.5mbyte/s throughput...well, it doesn't, but I already knew that...

In 'wired' networking, the real world ratio is more like 1/10, not 1/8...so I should get 30mbyte/s right? Nope!

My computer connected to the router at 270mbit/s out of a possible 300mbit/s speed, so I should at least get 27mbyte/s right? Do I have to say it again? :)

The envelope please...

25-28mbit/s internet download speeds via Speedtest which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-3.5mbyte/s

Computer to computer I was seeing a 1 hour transfer time on a 14gbyte file at 3.4mbyte/s. (I lucked out on the transfer speeds being so close between the internet and LAN)

Why so low? A theoretical 27mbyte/s down to 3.5mbyte/s? What gives?

Interference! Computer fans, CPU radiation from their high frequencies, 2.4ghz phones, electrical wiring/devices/walls, and of course the 5 or so wireless networks (plus however many computers that are on each network) that are in adjacent houses, not to mention the 5 other networks that are in range on the next street over that I can see if I go into the back yard. Whether you see it or not, it's all just 'static' in the air.

For those of you who aren't networking geek types...IP works on packet (little chunks or "post-its" of data) transfers...each packet is verified for errors, and if an error exists in it's delivery, the receiving computer requests a re-send of the same packet. This happens VERY fast, however, the more interference, the more errors, the more errors, the more re-sends...the more re-sends...the slower the overall throughput speed.

One aspect of my studies was the 5ghz frequency as it's not as widely used at the moment. It's faster, but shorter ranged...and considerably more expensive. 5ghz would be great as all my neighbors use 2.4ghz...I think? I can't really tell as I have no 5ghz NIC's, but it is a shorter ranged spec so even if there were a lot of 5ghz computers, the interference impact should be less.

I'm not ready to put copper shielding all over the house to keep out 'the evil frequencies' just yet so I'll have to just 'share the 2.4ghz road' with the other 'travelers'...again, best bang for the buck.

There are hardware/software solutions that will analyze your wireless setup to help with frequency overlapping/congestion, etc...however, these are expensive professional business related products and I wasn't about to lay out $500-1000 dollars just for a home network diagnostics.

Satisfaction...the N300 vs G, it's a HUGE improvement in real world speeds...and for the price ($40) of the upgrade...it was WELL WORTH IT. I do believe that in a year or two however, the AC spec will be more matured and may be worth reconsidering...but again, if your ISP only sends 3.5mbyte/s, what's the real use of having a superspeed wireless setup...(the weakest link in the chain)
Streaming movies from a central server is about the only thing I can think of that would require that much dedicated bandwidth but I'm not going to be streaming.

On a side note, if you are interested in upgrading your routers/NICs, you may want to pay attention to the communications chip that the equipment uses...some chips are better than others for a given application. This is a great specification site for hardware.

https://wikidevi.com/wiki/ASUS_RT-N12_rev_D1

It seems the Broadcom chips are used in a lot of the higher end units. What I did was research the Cisco routers, they are notoriously expensive but also widely trusted in the business world. The high end Asus units also have great reviews. So far the RT-N12D1 has been very stable. I've only experienced one reset so far but I was abusing it on purpose with a lot of torrent transfers to test how far I could push it's abilities. The bandwidth/sessions I was putting through it would have choked my G router and it would have stayed 'stalled' the entire day.

The RT-12ND1 isn't a top of the line unit, but I didn't pay for top of the line either. Provided it doesn't die on me within the next 2 years I will be happy with it...in 2 years it will be time for an upgrade anyway. Speaking of dying...all the routers I've had seem to last between 2-5 years before dying. I'm guessing it's due to their poorly made power supplies. The problem I see is that manufacturers use the same garbage power supplies on the expensive units...I think it's called 'planned obsolescence', manufacturers make products that last just long enough to make it through to your next 'fix'. :)

I think that's about it...I hope some of this information was helpful (and not too long-winded).

If anyone else has any networking/wireless experience/corrections/information, feel free to post!

Happy surfing!

:)
 

breno785au

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2013
6,002
765
113
39
Australia
#6
Yeah i use speedtest myself I just wasn't sure how it was related to the article. Lol you can never trust maximum theoretical throughputs from the routers, though some do perform much better than others. At home we get a 19mb/s connection and on my phone connected to the WiFi in my room on the other side of the house, about 15meters or so, I'm not so good at judging distance but 2 walls and a microwave between we get about 7mb/s which isn't too bad for an n300 router.