|
Wiring SMA connections
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. |
Wiring SMA connections
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 |
Wiring SMA connections
OK - thank you. I think I need what is called a pigtail; but at a
price. And - yes - I think the cable will be too lossy. I'll research the cat9 solution suggested. Thanks. Or I'll just have to buy a Linksys Range Extender at £100+. Unfortunately the guys at Maplin hadn't a clue on how to advise me. Actually I might just be able to use a 40ft phone extension cable and use a modem instead of WiFi. The WiFi sgnal is just too weak to go though 5 brick walls!! Thanks again - Chris Brady. |
Wiring SMA connections
CJB wrote:
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. CJB; 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'. A better suggestion would be to purchase a range extender that is available from most vendors of broadband equipment such as Best Buy and CDW to name two. Dave N |
Wiring SMA connections
"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 |
Wiring SMA connections
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. Dave |
Wiring SMA connections
Thanks guys for your help.
The exact problem is that I use two flats in the same block - one for living in, and one for work - on the same floor - but separated by a long corridor. The WiFi signal gets half-way along the corridor and then disappears. My phone socket and WiFi router (and printers) are all is in the work flat. I'd like to use the PC in my living flat. But there is no WiFi signal there. But I've actually been beaten by not being able to attach the SMA connectors to the coax - too fiddly!! £5 down the drain I guess. I may have an alternative - that is to use a 80 ft. long extension cable from my phone socket in my work flat to a modem in my living flat. I can route the cable down the corridor above the false ceiling panels. WiFi I can use when my PC is local to the router. Hmm - kind of contradicts the use of WiFi but the signal is too weak anyway. Incidentally I've tried tweaking the RF power output, but its set on maximum anyway. Unfortunately an intermediate Linksys Range Extender / Relay will not work because I do not have a power supply for it in the corridor mid- way between where the router and phone socket are and where the PC will be used. 73s - Chris B. On Feb 11, 9:08 pm, "David G. Nagel" wrote: 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. Dave- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Wiring SMA connections
Hi Chris
Dont feel bad about not being able to work on those SMAs. They are difficult both because of their small size, and their gender changes from application to application. There is *no* way I would consider wireless if the CAT 5 is a valid choice for interconnecting computers. Jerry "CJB" wrote in message oups.com... Thanks guys for your help. The exact problem is that I use two flats in the same block - one for living in, and one for work - on the same floor - but separated by a long corridor. The WiFi signal gets half-way along the corridor and then disappears. My phone socket and WiFi router (and printers) are all is in the work flat. I'd like to use the PC in my living flat. But there is no WiFi signal there. But I've actually been beaten by not being able to attach the SMA connectors to the coax - too fiddly!! £5 down the drain I guess. I may have an alternative - that is to use a 80 ft. long extension cable from my phone socket in my work flat to a modem in my living flat. I can route the cable down the corridor above the false ceiling panels. WiFi I can use when my PC is local to the router. Hmm - kind of contradicts the use of WiFi but the signal is too weak anyway. Incidentally I've tried tweaking the RF power output, but its set on maximum anyway. Unfortunately an intermediate Linksys Range Extender / Relay will not work because I do not have a power supply for it in the corridor mid- way between where the router and phone socket are and where the PC will be used. 73s - Chris B. On Feb 11, 9:08 pm, "David G. Nagel" wrote: 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. Dave- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Wiring SMA connections
|
Wiring SMA connections
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 |
Wiring SMA connections
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 |
Wiring SMA connections
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 |
Wiring SMA connections
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 |
Wiring SMA connections
"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 |
Wiring SMA connections
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 |
Wiring SMA connections
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 |
Wiring SMA connections
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 |
Wiring SMA connections
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com