Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by Brad Kara » Mon, 24 Sep 2001 02:43:49



Hi there:

Does anyone know where I could get reasonably objective reviews
and technical information/primers on long-range and ultra long-range
cordless phones. Of course, I do not mean the consumer phones you see
in store, but phones from companies like Senao, Engenius, Alcon, ACS
etcetera...

I would like to find out if this would be a viable option for me for
cellular replacement locally.

Thank for any help

Brad Karal

Toronto

 
 
 

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by SuperTec » Mon, 24 Sep 2001 03:34:00


I will comment on the engenius. It sucks. It will barely cover one large
office space. I have external
antennas and it is definitely disappointing to say the least. I cannot
comment on the other brands
since I have no experience. By the way we have tried the Engenius in
different locations We have relocated the antennas with no luck. I would say
that it is better than most cordless sets but not even close to what they
tout as the range. We also tried
a mast mount about 60 feet above the ground. It still sucked.

Steve

> Hi there:

> Does anyone know where I could get reasonably objective reviews
> and technical information/primers on long-range and ultra long-range
> cordless phones. Of course, I do not mean the consumer phones you see
> in store, but phones from companies like Senao, Engenius, Alcon, ACS
> etcetera...

> I would like to find out if this would be a viable option for me for
> cellular replacement locally.

> Thank for any help

> Brad Karal

> Toronto


 
 
 

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by Brad Kara » Mon, 24 Sep 2001 08:02:46


Thanks for the heads up! I'll keep it in mind.

Any other input folks?

Brad



>I will comment on the engenius. It sucks. It will barely cover one large
>office space. I have external
>antennas and it is definitely disappointing to say the least. I cannot
>comment on the other brands
>since I have no experience. By the way we have tried the Engenius in
>different locations We have relocated the antennas with no luck. I would say
>that it is better than most cordless sets but not even close to what they
>tout as the range. We also tried
>a mast mount about 60 feet above the ground. It still sucked.

>Steve


>> Hi there:

>> Does anyone know where I could get reasonably objective reviews
>> and technical information/primers on long-range and ultra long-range
>> cordless phones. Of course, I do not mean the consumer phones you see
>> in store, but phones from companies like Senao, Engenius, Alcon, ACS
>> etcetera...

>> I would like to find out if this would be a viable option for me for
>> cellular replacement locally.

>> Thank for any help

>> Brad Karal

>> Toronto

 
 
 

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by <goo.. » Mon, 24 Sep 2001 13:08:26


i have an older version of the engenius (sn900 ultra). and for me it works
WAAAAY better than any other (even versus 2.4ghz). my house will NOT permit
a cordless phone outside of it. i've tried 900mhz, 900mhz spread spectrum,
2.4ghz, etc..all the same. i got an engenius and an external antenna
(mounted on a pole just 12' high) and now i can go a 1/4 mile easy. am
planning to install the antenna higher to see if i can get more range. next
door at the neighbors, i can remove the antenna off of the handset and still
get a signal and talk on it!


> Hi there:

> Does anyone know where I could get reasonably objective reviews
> and technical information/primers on long-range and ultra long-range
> cordless phones. Of course, I do not mean the consumer phones you see
> in store, but phones from companies like Senao, Engenius, Alcon, ACS
> etcetera...

> I would like to find out if this would be a viable option for me for
> cellular replacement locally.

> Thank for any help

> Brad Karal

> Toronto

 
 
 

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by Dan Lancia » Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:23:05


| I will comment on the engenius. It sucks. It will barely cover one large
| office space. I have external
| antennas and it is definitely disappointing to say the least. I cannot
| comment on the other brands
| since I have no experience. By the way we have tried the Engenius in
| different locations We have relocated the antennas with no luck. I would say
| that it is better than most cordless sets but not even close to what they
| tout as the range. We also tried
| a mast mount about 60 feet above the ground. It still sucked.

I'm quite pleased with the EnGenius (other than the compatibility issues
between the first and second version).  I don't get the kind of range they
quote either, but it goes to about half a mile which is all I really need.
However, there is clearly something going on with the external antenna.  I
get *no* range increase over the built-on one.  In fact, there might be a
little loss of range.  I also tried putting it on a mast, though not quite
that high.  Still no benefit.  Either the antenna isn't really tuned right
or there is a lot of loss in the cable.  I'm going to test the latter one
of these days by making the cable much shorter...

                                Dan Lanciani

 
 
 

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by Tony Pellicci » Mon, 24 Sep 2001 23:36:57




> | I will comment on the engenius. It sucks. It will barely cover one large
> | office space. I have external
> | antennas and it is definitely disappointing to say the least. I cannot
> | comment on the other brands
> | since I have no experience. By the way we have tried the Engenius in
> | different locations We have relocated the antennas with no luck. I would say
> | that it is better than most cordless sets but not even close to what they
> | tout as the range. We also tried
> | a mast mount about 60 feet above the ground. It still sucked.

> I'm quite pleased with the EnGenius (other than the compatibility issues
> between the first and second version).  I don't get the kind of range they
> quote either, but it goes to about half a mile which is all I really need.
> However, there is clearly something going on with the external antenna.  I
> get *no* range increase over the built-on one.  In fact, there might be a
> little loss of range.  I also tried putting it on a mast, though not quite
> that high.  Still no benefit.  Either the antenna isn't really tuned right
> or there is a lot of loss in the cable.  I'm going to test the latter one
> of these days by making the cable much shorter...

What many people don't realize is that when you mount the outdoor
antenna you're using some sort of cable to feed the signal to the
antenna. If the cable you're using has a feedline loss of 3dB guess what
happens to the power output at the antenna? Yup - approximatley 1/2 of
what you'd normally get.

My suspicion is the cable you've got is alot more lossy than 3dB. That
would explain the problem.

Tony

 
 
 

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by L. M. Rappapor » Tue, 25 Sep 2001 05:19:29


Actually, you're dead right.  The outside antenna has a considerably
more than adequate amount of cable and it's relatively small in
diameter which guarantees substantial loss.  I understand this is as
directed in their license.  You will note that they use a connector
which you cannot buy:  I think an "S" type with a reverse thread.
What you might do is to splice the cable, removing all the excess and
using a type "N" or similar low loss connector.  You will need to keep
the original connectors so that you can connect to the base.

I believe that they use both 2.4ghz and 900 mhz spread spectrum - both
of which are quite lossy in small cable.  I'd actually expect over 3
db loss, but I'm just guessing.  I also think that the FCC lets them
get away with a higher power level (I think around 900 mw or 0.9
watts) due to the fact that they use spread spectrum which, by it's
nature, causes lowered interference.  

Btw, my experience with two of the first model is that I get almost a
half mile without external antennas, but putting the units in the
front window in the second floor.  I plan to add outside antennae and
make these analog extensions off the Panasonic 1232 PBX when I finally
get that programmed and connected.

Larry
--


possible editing):



>> | I will comment on the engenius. It sucks. It will barely cover one large
>> | office space. I have external
>> | antennas and it is definitely disappointing to say the least. I cannot
>> | comment on the other brands
>> | since I have no experience. By the way we have tried the Engenius in
>> | different locations We have relocated the antennas with no luck. I would say
>> | that it is better than most cordless sets but not even close to what they
>> | tout as the range. We also tried
>> | a mast mount about 60 feet above the ground. It still sucked.

>> I'm quite pleased with the EnGenius (other than the compatibility issues
>> between the first and second version).  I don't get the kind of range they
>> quote either, but it goes to about half a mile which is all I really need.
>> However, there is clearly something going on with the external antenna.  I
>> get *no* range increase over the built-on one.  In fact, there might be a
>> little loss of range.  I also tried putting it on a mast, though not quite
>> that high.  Still no benefit.  Either the antenna isn't really tuned right
>> or there is a lot of loss in the cable.  I'm going to test the latter one
>> of these days by making the cable much shorter...

>What many people don't realize is that when you mount the outdoor
>antenna you're using some sort of cable to feed the signal to the
>antenna. If the cable you're using has a feedline loss of 3dB guess what
>happens to the power output at the antenna? Yup - approximatley 1/2 of
>what you'd normally get.

>My suspicion is the cable you've got is alot more lossy than 3dB. That
>would explain the problem.

>Tony

 
 
 

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by Dan Lancia » Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:51:41




| > | I will comment on the engenius. It sucks. It will barely cover one large
| > | office space. I have external
| > | antennas and it is definitely disappointing to say the least. I cannot
| > | comment on the other brands
| > | since I have no experience. By the way we have tried the Engenius in
| > | different locations We have relocated the antennas with no luck. I would say
| > | that it is better than most cordless sets but not even close to what they
| > | tout as the range. We also tried
| > | a mast mount about 60 feet above the ground. It still sucked.
| >
| > I'm quite pleased with the EnGenius (other than the compatibility issues
| > between the first and second version).  I don't get the kind of range they
| > quote either, but it goes to about half a mile which is all I really need.
| > However, there is clearly something going on with the external antenna.  I
| > get *no* range increase over the built-on one.  In fact, there might be a
| > little loss of range.  I also tried putting it on a mast, though not quite
| > that high.  Still no benefit.  Either the antenna isn't really tuned right
| > or there is a lot of loss in the cable.  I'm going to test the latter one
| > of these days by making the cable much shorter...
|
| What many people don't realize is that when you mount the outdoor
| antenna you're using some sort of cable to feed the signal to the
| antenna.

I thought I covered that above, but we can certainly get an approximate
numerical figure.  The cable supplied in the original kit is 60ft of RG213.
Typical loss for RG213 at 1000MHz (close to 900MHz) is 0.095dB/foot.  That's
a whopping 5.7dB even ignoring connector loss.  There is a newer kit with
30ft of (presumably) the same cable.

| If the cable you're using has a feedline loss of 3dB guess what
| happens to the power output at the antenna? Yup - approximatley 1/2 of
| what you'd normally get.

And if it's nearly 6dB you are down to about 1/4...

| My suspicion is the cable you've got is alot more lossy than 3dB. That
| would explain the problem.

Your suspicion is correct, but it doesn't really explain the problem.  It
doesn't really explain the problem because the kit is sold as a complete unit
with connectorized cable as required by some interpretations of the FCC's
rules.  So the manufacturer knows in advance exactly what the loss is going
to be.  It would seem to be pointless to sell an antenna that can't help, so
they must believe that either antenna gain or advantageous height is going to
more than make up for the loss in the cable.  The height benefit is highly
site dependent so I wouldn't expect them to bank on that totally.  Either they
are just confused or something is amiss...

                                Dan Lanciani

 
 
 

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by Dan Lancia » Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:14:54



| Actually, you're dead right.  The outside antenna has a considerably
| more than adequate amount of cable and it's relatively small in
| diameter which guarantees substantial loss.

RG213 isn't all that small as coax goes, but see my previous posting for
detailed loss numbers.  The basic question of why one would want to sell
an antenna kit that can't possibly help remains.  Another question for all
these FCC-mandated pre-connectorized antenna cable assemblies is: how are
you supposed to comply with NEC grounding requirements?

| I understand this is as
| directed in their license.

Interesting.  Pointer?  (They do have a 30ft version now.)

| You will note that they use a connector
| which you cannot buy:  I think an "S" type with a reverse thread.
| What you might do is to splice the cable, removing all the excess and
| using a type "N" or similar low loss connector.  You will need to keep
| the original connectors so that you can connect to the base.

Which connector are you talking about?  The connector on the antenna (and
on the antenna end of the cable) is a standard N.  At least it was in my
kit.  The connector on the base end is a reverse-thread TNC.  These are not
yet as available as reverse-polarity TNCs, but I've seen them listed online
at at least one location.  In any case, there is no need to splice.  You can
simply cut off the antenna end and put a new N connector on the shorter cable.

As an interesting aside, when I first got the kit I used the coiled-up cable
as an adapter only (RT-TNC->N) to connect to an N->UHF adapter to connect to
about 100ft or RG8 to a discone on a 40ft tower.  With this I got just about
the same range as with the built-on antenna and later with the supplied
EnGenius antenna on a 10ft mast.

| I believe that they use both 2.4ghz and 900 mhz spread spectrum - both
| of which are quite lossy in small cable.

No, it's 900 only.

| I'd actually expect over 3
| db loss, but I'm just guessing.

And you'd be right. :)

|I also think that the FCC lets them
| get away with a higher power level (I think around 900 mw or 0.9
| watts) due to the fact that they use spread spectrum which, by it's
| nature, causes lowered interference.  

The FCC lets part 15 DSS devices go to 1W, but it's 1W of effective isotropic
radiated power, so the calculations can get tricky.  The original EnGenius
equipment was 600mW.  The new version ups the base to 900mW but the handsets
remain 600mW.  Unless they made a comparable improvement in the base's receiver
sensitivity, it isn't clear that the extra power can help.  I see no difference
in range between old and new.

                                Dan Lanciani

 
 
 

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by L. M. Rappapor » Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:51:33


Hi Dan,



>| Actually, you're dead right.  The outside antenna has a considerably
>| more than adequate amount of cable and it's relatively small in
>| diameter which guarantees substantial loss.

>RG213 isn't all that small as coax goes, but see my previous posting for
>detailed loss numbers.  The basic question of why one would want to sell
>an antenna kit that can't possibly help remains.  Another question for all
>these FCC-mandated pre-connectorized antenna cable assemblies is: how are
>you supposed to comply with NEC grounding requirements?

I have the first model and the cable is something considerably smaller
than RG-213.  I can't tell you the designation as it's not printed on
it, but it's about the diameter of 59/u - smaller than 6 but larger
than 58.  I suspect the reason for selling it is that while their ERP
is limited by the FCC (as you mention later), the outside antenna does
allow for a better omnidirectional pattern.

Quote:

>| I understand this is as
>| directed in their license.

>Interesting.  Pointer?  (They do have a 30ft version now.)

Don't have one - that's just repetition of a remark I read in an
amateur radio group.  

Quote:

>| You will note that they use a connector
>| which you cannot buy:  I think an "S" type with a reverse thread.
>| What you might do is to splice the cable, removing all the excess and
>| using a type "N" or similar low loss connector.  You will need to keep
>| the original connectors so that you can connect to the base.

>Which connector are you talking about?  The connector on the antenna (and
>on the antenna end of the cable) is a standard N.  At least it was in my
>kit.  The connector on the base end is a reverse-thread TNC.  These are not
>yet as available as reverse-polarity TNCs, but I've seen them listed online
>at at least one location.  In any case, there is no need to splice.  You can
>simply cut off the antenna end and put a new N connector on the shorter cable.

On my kit, it is not an N connector.  It is a reverse thread "S" - at
least I believe it is.  I don't use them.  It is about 1/4" in
diameter and threaded like a PL-259 - sort of a miniature version of
one, but I think I've seen it elsewhere used at UHF and beyond.

Actually, are you talking about the connector at the antenna end or
the phone?  I don't recall what they're using at the antenna, but the
connector at the base end is as I describe it above.

Quote:>As an interesting aside, when I first got the kit I used the coiled-up cable
>as an adapter only (RT-TNC->N) to connect to an N->UHF adapter to connect to
>about 100ft or RG8 to a discone on a 40ft tower.  With this I got just about
>the same range as with the built-on antenna and later with the supplied
>EnGenius antenna on a 10ft mast.

I'm wondering what would happen if I shortened the wire and stuck an N
type male to female to connect it.  Or better yet, used some
semi-flexible hardline to a short piece of the original.  I suspect
your discone would have done better with a better feedline.  RG8 is
pretty lossy at 900 mhz.  Still, both the discone and the supplied
vertical have a pretty low angle of radiation, and the RG8 can't be as
lossy as the stuff they supply.  I wonder why you didn't see an
improvement?

Quote:

>| I believe that they use both 2.4ghz and 900 mhz spread spectrum - both
>| of which are quite lossy in small cable.

>No, it's 900 only.

Ahh, ok.

>| I'd actually expect over 3
>| db loss, but I'm just guessing.

>And you'd be right. :)

>|I also think that the FCC lets them
>| get away with a higher power level (I think around 900 mw or 0.9
>| watts) due to the fact that they use spread spectrum which, by it's
>| nature, causes lowered interference.  

>The FCC lets part 15 DSS devices go to 1W, but it's 1W of effective isotropic
>radiated power, so the calculations can get tricky.  The original EnGenius
>equipment was 600mW.  The new version ups the base to 900mW but the handsets
>remain 600mW.  Unless they made a comparable improvement in the base's receiver
>sensitivity, it isn't clear that the extra power can help.  I see no difference
>in range between old and new.

>                            Dan Lanciani


Not all that tricky - just take the dbi gain of the antenna, reduce it
by the loss in cable and connectors and apply it to the transmitted
power.  Thing is, as we both know, an extra 3db, while helpful, won't
make a staggering difference.  

Larry
--

 
 
 

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by Dan Lancia » Wed, 26 Sep 2001 12:27:38



| I have the first model and the cable is something considerably smaller
| than RG-213.  I can't tell you the designation as it's not printed on
| it, but it's about the diameter of 59/u - smaller than 6 but larger
| than 58.

It sounds like you have a completely different kit.  When did you buy it?  I
got mine around the time the original 900 series came out and it is RG213.
There are some relatively low-loss small-diameter cables, but they tend to be
very expensive. :(

| I suspect the reason for selling it is that while their ERP
| is limited by the FCC (as you mention later), the outside antenna does
| allow for a better omnidirectional pattern.

Could be.  Or maybe they are just confused. :)

| >| which you cannot buy:  I think an "S" type with a reverse thread.
| >| What you might do is to splice the cable, removing all the excess and
| >| using a type "N" or similar low loss connector.  You will need to keep
| >| the original connectors so that you can connect to the base.
| >
| >Which connector are you talking about?  The connector on the antenna (and
| >on the antenna end of the cable) is a standard N.  At least it was in my
| >kit.  The connector on the base end is a reverse-thread TNC.  These are not
| >yet as available as reverse-polarity TNCs, but I've seen them listed online
| >at at least one location.  In any case, there is no need to splice.  You can
| >simply cut off the antenna end and put a new N connector on the shorter cable.
|
| On my kit, it is not an N connector.  It is a reverse thread "S" - at
| least I believe it is.  I don't use them.  It is about 1/4" in
| diameter and threaded like a PL-259 - sort of a miniature version of
| one, but I think I've seen it elsewhere used at UHF and beyond.
|
| Actually, are you talking about the connector at the antenna end or
| the phone?

I was talking about both.  The antenna is N and the base is reverse-thread TNC.
The N connector on the antenna is actually cast into the metal hub, so if you
have a different connector you may well have a different antenna...

| I'm wondering what would happen if I shortened the wire and stuck an N
| type male to female to connect it.  Or better yet, used some
| semi-flexible hardline to a short piece of the original.

Or just buy a version with N connectors at the antenna and it becomes
easy to shorten.

| >The FCC lets part 15 DSS devices go to 1W, but it's 1W of effective isotropic
| >radiated power, so the calculations can get tricky.  The original EnGenius
| >equipment was 600mW.  The new version ups the base to 900mW but the handsets
| >remain 600mW.  Unless they made a comparable improvement in the base's receiver
| >sensitivity, it isn't clear that the extra power can help.  I see no difference
| >in range between old and new.

| Not all that tricky - just take the dbi gain of the antenna, reduce it
| by the loss in cable and connectors and apply it to the transmitted
| power.

It's tricky in general because there are bonuses in the power budget for
certain antenna configurations and nominally well-intentioned groups disagree
on the exact interpretation of the FCC's rules.  It's more tricky in this
particular case because I don't know the alleged antenna gain or the loss
in the connectors.

| Thing is, as we both know, an extra 3db, while helpful, won't
| make a staggering difference.  

Yes, I think I will propose Murphy's anisotropic antenna rule.  An extra 3db
of gain rarely helps significantly, but an extra 3db of loss often hurts.

                                Dan Lanciani

 
 
 

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by L. M. Rappapor » Wed, 26 Sep 2001 22:17:29




>| I have the first model and the cable is something considerably smaller
>| than RG-213.  I can't tell you the designation as it's not printed on
>| it, but it's about the diameter of 59/u - smaller than 6 but larger
>| than 58.

>It sounds like you have a completely different kit.  When did you buy it?  I
>got mine around the time the original 900 series came out and it is RG213.
>There are some relatively low-loss small-diameter cables, but they tend to be
>very expensive. :(

Seems like I bought it early last Spring, although I'm not sure.  I am
sure that this is not small diameter hardline however!  

Quote:>| I suspect the reason for selling it is that while their ERP
>| is limited by the FCC (as you mention later), the outside antenna does
>| allow for a better omnidirectional pattern.

>Could be.  Or maybe they are just confused. :)

Heh, heh.  That, too!

Quote:>Or just buy a version with N connectors at the antenna and it becomes
>easy to shorten.

Ok, then that must mean that the current version uses a regular N
connector at the antenna, correct?

Quote:>It's tricky in general because there are bonuses in the power budget for
>certain antenna configurations and nominally well-intentioned groups disagree
>on the exact interpretation of the FCC's rules.  It's more tricky in this
>particular case because I don't know the alleged antenna gain or the loss
>in the connectors.

Ahh, I see.  Then they (FCC) don't require field measurement of dbi?
It's been a while since I looked at the rules!

Quote:>| Thing is, as we both know, an extra 3db, while helpful, won't
>| make a staggering difference.  

>Yes, I think I will propose Murphy's anisotropic antenna rule.  An extra 3db
>of gain rarely helps significantly, but an extra 3db of loss often hurts.

That's terrific!  Dan's law!

Larry
--

 
 
 

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by Dan Lancia » Thu, 27 Sep 2001 04:57:31




|

| >
| >| I have the first model and the cable is something considerably smaller
| >| than RG-213.  I can't tell you the designation as it's not printed on
| >| it, but it's about the diameter of 59/u - smaller than 6 but larger
| >| than 58.
| >
| >It sounds like you have a completely different kit.  When did you buy it?  I
| >got mine around the time the original 900 series came out and it is RG213.
| >There are some relatively low-loss small-diameter cables, but they tend to be
| >very expensive. :(
|
| Seems like I bought it early last Spring, although I'm not sure.  I am
| sure that this is not small diameter hardline however!  

I bought mine in early 1999, so maybe they have cost-reduced since then. :(

| >Or just buy a version with N connectors at the antenna and it becomes
| >easy to shorten.
|
| Ok, then that must mean that the current version uses a regular N
| connector at the antenna, correct?

That's what I thought, but given that yours is newer than mine, perhaps
the current version does not...

| Ahh, I see.  Then they (FCC) don't require field measurement of dbi?

This is another huge cans of worms.  It is unclear who may bless any given
configuration.  At first it was said that only complete systems where all
parts came from the same manufacturer (and incorporated non-standard connectors)
could be used/certified.  Then people started talking about OEMs who are OEMs
only in the sense that they buy antenna, amplifier, and radio equipment and
put them together in acceptable configurations.  But even that doesn't make
a lot of sense for point-to-point rules where the power budget is dependent
on your intentions.  So now you hear a lot about requiring a "professional" to
create and bless an installation by doing the appropriate calculations (and
presumably by insuring that you aren't, e.g., simulating point-to-multipoint
using several co-located transmitters sending the same material--this is
another aspect of the rules).  But as to what constitutes  "professional"...

                                Dan Lanciani

 
 
 

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by Dan Lancia » Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:51:00


Ok, I decided to stop being lazy and make the test.  I shortened the 60ft
cable to 14ft.  Antenna is on a 10ft mast on a ~15ft roof peek.  I put the
new 900mW base in the attic so I needed only 4ft to get in.  With this the
most optimal setup I could contrive I get about a 50ft increase in absolute
range compared to the old 600mW base with built-on antenna at eye level inside.
By absolute range I mean the last point where I can get any kind of connection.
There was no increase in practical (usable for talking) range.

                                Dan Lanciani

 
 
 

Long-Range and Ultra-long-range cordless phone tech. info / reviews

Post by L. M. Rappapor » Sat, 29 Sep 2001 21:20:56


Hmm, very strange.  You would think there would be a noticeable
improvement.  By any chance did you measure the dc resistance from the
reverse TNC to the end of the feedline or to shield?  I wonder if
there is some kind of built in attenuation in the feedline other than
regular loss.

I guess that leaves it to me to open up one of these puppies and see
how they feed the internal and external antennae.

Larry
--


>Ok, I decided to stop being lazy and make the test.  I shortened the 60ft
>cable to 14ft.  Antenna is on a 10ft mast on a ~15ft roof peek.  I put the
>new 900mW base in the attic so I needed only 4ft to get in.  With this the
>most optimal setup I could contrive I get about a 50ft increase in absolute
>range compared to the old 600mW base with built-on antenna at eye level inside.
>By absolute range I mean the last point where I can get any kind of connection.
>There was no increase in practical (usable for talking) range.

>                            Dan Lanciani


 
 
 

1. REQ: Long-range cordless phone info. and reviews

Hi all:

Could anyone refer me to a good layperson's source of info. for
long-range cordless phones. I would like to be able to review and
evaluate the claims of products from companies such as Senao,
Engenius, Sanyo and others.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Brad Karal
--
The Telecom Digest is currently mostly robomoderated. Please mail

2. cannot read win32.programmer.kernel ..

3. Long range cordless phones

4. 4X CDROM Drive Recomend.

5. long range cordless phones

6. Software Measurement/Metrics for realtime systems.

7. Samsung SGH N288 Long Range Cordless Phone

8. Is there an ADS/LISP news group?

9. Long Range Cordless Phone Wanted!

10. Super Long Range Cordless Phones

11. Need Recommendation For Long Range Cordless Phone