What angle is optimal for the antennas on my wireless network card?

19

2

I'm sharing a house with some friends and I'm in the bedroom right up in the attic. The router is right down on the ground floor and I get connectivity issues.

I've found that if I adjust the two antennas on my network card I can sometimes get a much better signal.

Is there an optimum angle to get the best connection or is it academic? Should they be pointing towards the router? Should they be spread into a V shape or stick out parallel to each other?

Nick Brunt

Posted 2011-10-03T00:24:03.750

Reputation: 672

1

It is data dependent

– RedGrittyBrick – 2011-10-03T11:03:21.517

Answers

3

It should be set so the waves go in the direction you want them to go. One would think that the waves emanate from the "pole" because that is what the pictures always show |)))) but in reality the pole is only one connection point for the creation of the airborne electrical wave. The "ground plane" is the other connection point. |_))) So the waves emanate out from the pole and the ground plane. (( _\

Google images of ground planes

Fixed: When you see all the VHF and UHF receivers being used in theatres and DJs and all, for some reason unknown to me, they always use the \ / shape, I assume that helps receive as the signals bounce around so when "line of sight" gets blocked, it still gets there. ))) \__/ ((( Or maybe it works with the ground plane in some way?

Almost always when you're trying to get omni-directionality (((|))) they always go with straight up. Whenever testing any of this stuff, I have found that the most consistent results for omni-directional and movement is straight up. If you have a back ground plane that changes it.

I don't know. I thought I had an epiphany, when I look at a Tesla or large visible electrical output, radio waves in a sense are very tiny powered higher frequency similarities. I could see the Tesla.

Tesla pic of the idea

For more epiphanies, it took me days before the light bulb went off that Wi-Fi adapters are not just receivers, they are a transmitter/receiver like the router is.

Psycogeek

Posted 2011-10-03T00:24:03.750

Reputation: 8 067

@Psycogeek So you say that omni-directional antennaes should be pointed up? – Boris_yo – 2014-12-06T06:07:23.240

you may want to change the link of the quarter wave antenna with this, or directly link the images: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/274477/quarter-wave-lenght-antenna-shape?rq=1

– FarO – 2017-10-12T16:27:37.507

Well the router is almost directly below the network adapter so should the antennas be vertical or horizontal? – Nick Brunt – 2011-10-03T00:52:20.053

1

The least signal goes in the direction the antenna is pointing, so if you want signal to go down, you want the antenna to be horizontal. See this page of HP ProCurve documentation.

– David Schwartz – 2011-10-03T01:23:35.710

Edited: Analise the ground plane, if the ground plane is a metal computer, then think about how between the antennas and the computer, you can point the electrical air arc that departs from both as a team. The parabola. A desktop computer with antenna out back, much of the signal is blocked by . . . the ground plane. the signal is shooting out back. – Psycogeek – 2011-10-03T01:23:59.590

6

The optimal angle is the one where you get best reception at all necessary points in your house.

Experiment!

The problem with theories and specific suggestions is that they can in no way take into account the design of your house, where the appliances are, where you'll be using the signal, and a host of other factors.

Therefore, the best suggestion is to determine the places where you're most likely to use the signal (outside on the patio or porch, in the living room or den, the kitchen, etc) and then try several different antenna arrangements until you find that arrangement that supports the best signal in the various areas of use.

music2myear

Posted 2011-10-03T00:24:03.750

Reputation: 34 957

2I've found this to be largely the case. Regardless of what theoretically is the best from a physics standpoint, the reality is that houses have so many potential sources of interference that you just need to experiment to figure out what will work best. – nhinkle – 2011-10-03T23:03:28.323

5

Radio Technician here. Obviously late, but hope I can help clear up any confusion

Almost any kind of Wi-Fi antenna will be a dipole. Dipole antennas theoretically radiate in a 360 degree disc around the antenna, in other words, a plane perpendicular to the antenna. To help visualize it, think of your antenna like a lighthouse, but shining in all 360 degrees at once.

In the real world, it won't be a flat plane, but instead more of a doughnut shape. The signal will be weaker above and below the plane, especially close to the antenna, but there won't likely be a complete dead zone. With all that said, if you only had one antenna, it would be good to place it perpendicular to your target. If your access point is below you, that would mean placing the antenna parallel the ground.

Enter the second (or more) antennas if you have them. Should that be oriented in the same way to further boost the signal strength? Probably not. Dipoles aren't just directional, they are also polarized. That means, signals will lose power when the transmitting and receiving antennas aren't oriented the same way.

Consider your cell phone's antenna... It is constantly changing orientation. If your transmitting antennas are both oriented the same, the receiving antenna will often be at a bad angle, leading to a lossy connection. If you have your second antenna 90 degrees off of your first antenna, you will greatly improve signal, just based on having appropriate polarization for more incoming signals, including all the reflected and refracted signals. \ / Bunny ears didn't happen by accident .

So in summary, point your first antenna perpendicular to your intended target, or straight up if you just want to cover a flat area like a single floor home. Point your second antenna 90 degrees off that. You can try to be strategic about which of the 360 possible degrees you use for that second antenna, but most of the time it won't matter much, since the bulk of its job is catching mis-polarized signals.

A lot a good info about antenna characteristics can be found here: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/wireless-mobility/wireless-lan-wlan/82068-omni-vs-direct.html

Ryan

Posted 2011-10-03T00:24:03.750

Reputation: 51

1Are really dipole or just quarter wave with ground plane? I should open my router to check :) – FarO – 2017-10-12T16:29:26.557

4

You want the antennas on your card and the router to be roughly parallel to each other.

Thus, if both are on the same floor they would both be vertical.

Router !))) )) ) ) ! You

And if they were on different floors they'd be horizontal.

DanBeale

Posted 2011-10-03T00:24:03.750

Reputation: 314

I'm trying to think of their optimal positions as being tangential to spheres that emanate from each of the antennae. Would this be correct? – marklark – 2012-09-09T14:33:48.023

3

It really depends on the design of the antennas. My best guess is that you've got a pair of omnidirectional dipoles (probably the most common externally-visible antenna type on consumer indoor Wi-Fi gear). Omnidirectional antennas are actually only omnidirectional in 360 degrees of a 2D plane, not a 3D sphere (evenly-distributed spherical coverage is called isotropic). Dipole antennas do not have as good coverage out the "top" and "bottom" of the pole. Their coverage is optimized to be roughly equal out all 360 degrees around the "sides" of the pole. So for best coverage, make sure the side of the pole is perpendicular to the direction of the other device.

One way to visualize this is to take a small flat piece of cardboard, cut it into a circle about the size of a DVD, punch a hole in the middle of it and slide it over the dipole. Maybe use tape to keep it perpendicular to the sides of the antenna. Now imagine that the plane of the cardboard extends indefinitely in all directions, and use that to visualize how to point your antennas.

Spiff

Posted 2011-10-03T00:24:03.750

Reputation: 84 656

3

Yes, it makes a difference.

There is a "cone of silence", the tip of which comes to the ends of your antennas. I'm pretty sure you get maximum power transfer 90 degrees off of the cone of silence.

In other words, you want the antennas on both sides to be running parallel to each other. It's gets more interesting if you have materials around that are reflective to the wavelengths you're dealing with, then you can end up with a strong path through some intermediate surface.

Oh silly wave geometry, how you like to crop up all the time.

James T Snell

Posted 2011-10-03T00:24:03.750

Reputation: 5 726

0

The antenna position doesn't matter but they must be set at right angles to each other.

Kari

Posted 2011-10-03T00:24:03.750

Reputation: 195

2So in other words... the antenna position does matter? Can you explain why they must be set at right angles? – nhinkle – 2011-10-03T23:02:34.157

2This is incorrect. If you're only trying to cover a single story building, and you've got omnidirectional dipoles, you want them both parallel to each other, perpendicular to the floor. – Spiff – 2011-10-03T23:10:40.720

I agree with Spiff. +1 – James T Snell – 2011-10-03T23:12:37.230