Has anyone used arerial splitters to improve coverage

[ivickery]

Hi I would like to know if anyone used arerial splitters to improve coverage and whether or not it was sucessful. i.e. 2 aerials back to the same access point.

Would this configuration be supported by Cisco?

Ian Vickery

[blue.modal]

Cisco doesn't 'support' anything other than their OEM'd antenna on an AP.

You can attach as many antennas as you want, as long as you stay within FCC guidelines AND realize that when you split the connection, you also split the power.

A 350 AP at 100mW puts out 20dBm of RF power. A 2:1 splitter means that each antenna gets 10dBm of power - about 10mW. You can 'fix' that by adding an amp, but it takes a big (expensive) amp to get you back to the power you would have had right from the AP.

The short answer is that splitter should be used for difficult or unusual coverage areas with low user counts. Otherwise an additional AP may be more cost-effective.

Matthew Wheeler

Chief Wireless Architect

www.BlueModal.com

[jorge_lopez]

I think you would have around 3dB losses when using a splitter. maybe, this configuration will be useful when using quite directional antennas Isn't it? In Europe we're more limited on PIRE,so it's difficult to find a scenary in wich you could use this. sometihng Similar... Does anyone used a back to back antenna configuration to conform something similar toa passive repeater and reach non LOS places?

[luisk2]

Sorry George i can´t undestand what you stand when writte "sometihng Similar" and "similar toa". Can you explain to us? Thanks in advance.

[blue.modal]

Thanks for correcting my math. 20dBm minus 3dB for 2:1 splitter = 2 by 8.5dBm per antenna.

I have seen a few people experiment with back-to-back antennas to 'bend' the signal, but I've never seen them post results, so it seem unlikely that they are good!

Matthew Wheeler

Chief Wireless Architect

www.BlueModal.com