<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=718015808-18022004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>It
would be interesting to have someone such as yourself do some testing on G cards
with maybe a cheap home made cantenna and see what signal to noise ratio you
get, and if you get a high speed connection or not. If the cantennas don't give
you a high speed connection, <EM>then</EM> you could spend money on some Hills
antennas and compare the new signal / noise ratio and if that improves the llink
enough to allow the higher speeds that G offers.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=718015808-18022004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=718015808-18022004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I'd
even be interested in seeing the 108 meg modes that some cards offer will work
too. If I ever get a G card, I think I'd get a 108 meg capable
one.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=718015808-18022004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=718015808-18022004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> One question about G to everyone, will a G card swapping form B to
G mode provide better or worse performance than say just B mode itself?
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=718015808-18022004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=718015808-18022004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=718015808-18022004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>g@z.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=718015808-18022004></SPAN> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
owner-melbwireless@wireless.org.au
[mailto:owner-melbwireless@wireless.org.au]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Michael
Borthwick<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, 18 February 2004 7:19 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
melbwireless@wireless.org.au<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Wireless
connection -1200m apart<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><BR>On 18/02/2004, at 4:45 PM,
Phil Mawson wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><TT><BR></TT><BR>I had seent he Vagi directional antennas by
Hills. But it only has a 15.6dBi rating. As I said before, I am new to
wireless, but I gather that a 25dBi rating is better, and the parabolic grid
antenna is only another $10. Or would the Vagi antenna be better because it
is more directional therefore a higher signal
strength?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No. The Vagi has 10dBi *less* signal strength
than the parabolic but what you're not appreciating (and you are in good
company) is that once you have *enough* signal at each end (technically a high
enough signal to noise ratio) for the two radios to connect at their highest
data rate then any additional signal strength provides no increase in speed.
Therefore it is not automatically "better" as you write above - unless you
decide to swing one of them around and join us in the Melbourne Wireless
network.<BR><BR>In fact over that distance you might get away with building
any of a number of very cheap home made antennas such as helicals, cantennas,
antcaps, corner reflectors which might offer you around 10dBi gain which could
be plenty for your application.<BR><BR>You can work what you need by
calculating what is called the "link budget" for your link. This is
straightforward and will help you to understand what is going
on.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Mike<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>