Richard Clark wrote:

On 11 Feb 2007 09:51:10 -0800, "CJB" wrote:


I have about 40 ft. of mini-coax. and I need to connect the
SMA male and reverse (female) connectors to either end.


It would be simpler to just attach a resistor. That much cable is
going to be so lossy that any useful signal going in will never see
the other end.

The solution is to use 40ft of Cat9 to extend the wireless router.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cat9, hmm, the only Cat9 I know of is -

http://www.tubecollector.org/cat9.htm

and while it's quite lengthy, 40 feet of them would not be suitable for
use at microwave frequencies.

Perhaps you meant Cat5.

It is a neat tube though.

tom
K0TAR

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:36:12 -0600, Tom Ring
wrote:

Perhaps you meant Cat5.

Thank you Tom. Yes, this has been pointed out to me in other
correspondence. ;-(

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Tom Ring wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

CJB wrote:


I have about 40 ft. of mini-coax. and I need to connect the
SMA male and reverse (female) connectors to either end.


It would be simpler to just attach a resistor. That much cable is
going to be so lossy that any useful signal going in will never see
the other end.

The solution is to use 40ft of Cat9 to extend the wireless router.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cat9, hmm, the only Cat9 I know of is -

http://www.tubecollector.org/cat9.htm

and while it's quite lengthy, 40 feet of them would not be suitable for
use at microwave frequencies.

Perhaps you meant Cat5.

It is a neat tube though.

tom
K0TAR

I like it... almost as much as the Umac 606 Phantasatron:
http://www.geocities.com/bswadener/humor/umac606.htm. ;^)
Bryan WA7PRC

"David G. Nagel" wrote in
:

Owen Duffy wrote:
"David G. Nagel" wrote in news:12suqifm1gfv596
@corp.supernews.com:

Before you invest to much more time and money in your project, no
matter how necessary it may be, you need to look at the signal loss
generated by the RG174 you are proposing to use. It is so extreme
only very short lengths should be used, 1" to 3'.

RG174 would be a very poor choice.

LMR195 (RG58 dimensions) is more likely to be the type of cable used
for small diameter, or larger LMR types for a long run like 40'.

The loss in 40' of LMR195 at 2400MHz is ~8dB, not a pretty picture.
Losses in a metre or three are practical.

Owen


Owen;

I just picked on RG 174 as an example. Your choice is not very much
better which only points out the problem with coax at high
frequencies. I think that the original writer has decided on his own
to do something else.

The LMR195 is 12.4dB better, I will leave it to the end user to make his
mind up about whether that is "not very much better".

Yes, clearly the message is to minimise the length of RF transmission
lines, and to use line types appropriate to the length and application.

Owen

Yes - I did try walking down the corridor with the laptop!! The
dropout rate was quite high. But I did get about halfway along before
the signal was lost!!

I did a Google on the web for 'Cat9 cable' and did find some mention.
Also for Cat5.

I'll see if the extension cable works. But might be resigned to a
repeater halfway along the corridor. I could hide this in the ceiling
panelling and power it with a cable from either flat!!

There is another solution - maybe - to attach a full size indoor
aerial to the laptop. It has a t.v. card in it!! Maybe that would
increase the strength of the input signal to the wireless card.

Chris B.

On Feb 11, 11:41 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On 11 Feb 2007 15:19:11 -0800, "CJB" wrote:

Just found a possible solution:

Only if both flats can take the 5dB loss in the cable, AND the path
loss of 4.5 meters. Wireless routers are rated for quite a distance
in the clear, but apparently your brick puts the challenge to that.

Walk down the hall with your laptop running its adapter program
showing signal strength. How far can you go? If it isn't half way,
you don't stand a chance. If you can, then subtract 5dB (which means
roughly to the other flat's front door) and the signal should still be
substantial (or your throughput will plummet).

Run CAT5 between flats and buy another router.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Chris

You might want to test the data transfer speed while making your "distance
tests". I'd use CAT 5 whenever the cable connection can be allowed.

Jerry



"CJB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yes - I did try walking down the corridor with the laptop!! The
dropout rate was quite high. But I did get about halfway along before
the signal was lost!!

I did a Google on the web for 'Cat9 cable' and did find some mention.
Also for Cat5.

I'll see if the extension cable works. But might be resigned to a
repeater halfway along the corridor. I could hide this in the ceiling
panelling and power it with a cable from either flat!!

There is another solution - maybe - to attach a full size indoor
aerial to the laptop. It has a t.v. card in it!! Maybe that would
increase the strength of the input signal to the wireless card.

Chris B.

On Feb 11, 11:41 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On 11 Feb 2007 15:19:11 -0800, "CJB" wrote:

Just found a possible solution:

Only if both flats can take the 5dB loss in the cable, AND the path
loss of 4.5 meters. Wireless routers are rated for quite a distance
in the clear, but apparently your brick puts the challenge to that.

Walk down the hall with your laptop running its adapter program
showing signal strength. How far can you go? If it isn't half way,
you don't stand a chance. If you can, then subtract 5dB (which means
roughly to the other flat's front door) and the signal should still be
substantial (or your throughput will plummet).

Run CAT5 between flats and buy another router.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 12 Feb 2007 05:36:58 -0800, "CJB" wrote:

But I did get about halfway along before
the signal was lost!!

You don't stand a chance.

I did a Google on the web for 'Cat9 cable' and did find some mention.
Also for Cat5.

Cat5 is what you want, I used the wrong number.

There is another solution - maybe - to attach a full size indoor
aerial to the laptop.

The full sized aerial for wireless is what you see - a stub of roughly
3 inches or so.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"CJB" wrote in message
ups.com...
I need to enxtend the mini-coax cable on my broadband wireless router
antena. I have about 40 ft. of mini-coax. and I need to connect the
SMA male and reverse (female) connectors to either end. I got the two
connectors from Maplin but sans instructions (thinking that this would
be easy!). BUT now I can't work out how to the cable attaches to the
connectors; and there are no instructions on the web. Please can
someone help. many thanks - CJB.

You can't use 40 ft of RG174, but here are some possibilities.

1. Extend the Ethernet cable instead.
2. Use a couple of inches of RG174, then an SMA to N adapter, and 40 feet of
LMR400 or Belden 9913. Be advised, either of these is big stuff, about 1/2
inch.
3. Put a high gain yagi antenna on the router end (probably vertically
polarized), pointed at where wireless user is. If it works, this will be the
cheapest solution.

Tam