Thread 106230218

How many antennas does a router need for maximum efficiency, before seeing diminishing returns?

>>106230218 (OP)
Maybe you should understand what MIMO is first and then ask less stupid questions.

8

>>106230231
why cant the cellular and wifi antennas be shared

>>106230320
wave length

>>106230218 (OP)
Over 9000

>>106230218 (OP)
From my last test, at least 7 for simmetry

a multiple of 4

>>106230218 (OP)
Honestly depends

Some routers use dedicated antennas for each band, some routers have multi-band antennas.

A router with 2x2 2.4/5ghz radios using multi-band antennas would only need 2 antennas (though each antenna would technically be 2 antennas just in the same housing).

But a router using single band antennas would need 4 antennas for 2x2 2.4/5ghz operation.

This gets even worse with routers that use 6ghz as well.

A router with 2x2 2.4Ghz, 4x4 5Ghz, and 2x2 6Ghz, would likely need 8 antennas, though could be as few as 4 antennas if 2 of them are combined 2.4/5ghz, and 2 others are combined 5ghz/6ghz

So yeah, it really just depends on the router specs and what exactly you're trying to do.

>>106230218 (OP)
The three on the back are for 2.4GHz, the two on the sides are for 5GHz.
Different frequencies have different optimal antenna lengths (the shape of the antenna inside the housing is different).

>>106231088
Wrong

It's 3x3 2.4/5ghz which share all 3 rear antennas.

The two on the sides are for LTE

>>106231112
I guess I should have looked closer at the text on the antenna, seeing the side ones have "4G" printed on them.

>>106230218 (OP)
Is TP-Link shit? People always advice against buying their stuff

>>106231307
They're Chinese, so they're not great, but they're not complete dogshit if you're fine with Chinese networking equipment.

I need to get a cell router with a sim card for a remote location. Typically the area I am in has spotty phone connection. I was wondering
1) will the cell router have a much better signal due to antennas?
2) can I somehow use the router to boost/improve the signal of my regular phone I carry around?

dreefiddy

>>106230218 (OP)
yes

>>106231307
New TP-Link is bad. Older stuff had more reputable chips and easy to install custom firmware.

>>106231556
There's modems and repeaters, usually these devices have an antenna you can aim towards the cell tower or nearest town to get better reception. I don't know of combined modem and repeaters, maybe they exist.

>>106230218 (OP)
0. Routers route. What you're talking about is an access point.

>>106231977
If it is part of more than one network, it is a router.
Not all access points are, but most of them are (or at least capable of being).

>>106230320
Why would a router need a cellular antenna?

>>106231307
Any post telling you TP-Link is shit, is just a three letter agency bot trying to make you buy backdoored hardware.
As with everything, TP-Link offer budget options and higher end.
Their archer routers comes with 2.5 GbE, VPN server for wireguard/openvpn and excellent support for custom firmware.

>>106230218 (OP)
So many that they can achieve spaceflight.

>>106230218 (OP)
If your router doesn't look like it's gonna perform Ariel maneuvers and shoot lasers don't even talk to me

Meanwhile, one of these installed on the top floor ceiling of my brick 3 story 3,000 SF house. Covers EVERY room perfectly and my back yard pool and all the guests.

Its around 8" circle, and doesn'y look like a spider. Wife thinks it looks nice and said the dome look matches the lights around the house.

Don't believe the ugly antenna jew. Just get a good AP chipset.

pic related is U6e. Got it for $150 off amazon.

>>106235357
That just has like 15 antenna inside it.

>>106235357
I prefer the look of the new models personally. Comes in black and is flatter on the front instead of domed.

>>106235388
Nah, usually between 4 and 10 depending on the model.

>>106235388
>>106235404
Yes, we know it has antenna's. Its just not ugly as fuck like OP and performs better.

>>106235393
Sure. I never said it was the best offering, just the best value. Wifi 7 is barely faster than Wifi 6e AND both need line of site to connect to clients, so your 5ghz band is where the REAL wifi network in any house with walls. I also don't like running 10gig through long runs of cat6 in my wall / roof (my router is in the basement, and my AP is in the top floor). Running 10gig through 75+ft of cat6 is housefire energy use for a wifi tech that only works if I am sitting underneath the darn thing.

You do you buddy. I'm just saying the tarantula routers are a meme for stupid people to believe its what makes a good antenna. You'll notice actually smart companies don't do this bullshit pic related.

>>106235476
>Running 10gig through 75+ft of cat6 is housefire energy use for a wifi tech that only works if I am sitting underneath the darn thing
You know you can force it to run at 1gbps or 2.5gbps... Right?

You don't HAVE to run it at 10gbps just because it supports it.

>>106235492
Thanks anon, I get that. I just didn't see the benefit of spending twice the money for a worse performing accesspoint where my ISP is capped at 1.6 GPS. No need for 10gig wifi, so I run at 2.5gps. Which I can only saturate if I sit underneath the access point with my latest Lunar Lake laptop that has the best god damned client wifi antenna on planet earth (Lenovo Yoga 258v)

/g/ likes to shit on Ubiquiti but they use top tier hardware on their access points. Look at the u6e I have, 2x2 2.4 ghx, 4x4 5ghz, 4x4 6ghz with a Qualcomm IPQ5018 chipset.

Only commercial Cisco AP's have better hardware and require a lot of $$$$ goy-license fees to access remotely.

>>106235476
Spider routers are like that because they're roughly level with people, so you get the best performance with the antenna being vertical.
Those disc routers are generally mounted on ceilings, like yours, which gets away with having the horizontal antenna, because it's above the devices connecting to it.
Of course, spider routers can be mounted on ceilings, in which case you would make the antenna horizontal instead of vertical for best performance. And you could mount a disc router on a wall so the antenna will be vertical, but then you'd want it to be more chest height.
Basically, the disc router is designed around a more narrowed scope of installation while the spider routers can be used anywhere.

>>106235578
Hey look. I am all about science. I just think with the frequencies wifi operating on being so fucking small, walls have a way bigger impact than anything, and those stick antennas are meme's for picking up those frequencies.

For example the X7b modem from xfinity has always on xfinitywifi so fucking intense that even when I disconnect the antenna leads and drape it in faraday cloths, it can still be picked up outside my house at my pool.

Pic related is what is outperforming all these meme spider routers EVEN with all the leads disconnected. That little silver square thingy outperforms by large margins all the spider routers on the market in terms of broadcast range.

You are being cucked as a consumer.

Any time you see more than two antennas for wifi, it is because the company was too cheap to use an antenna multiplexer

>>106235695
>and drape it in faraday cloths
Did you ground those cloths?

>>106235836
Yes.

>>106235695
>Knows nothing about RF or antenna design
So confidently wrong lmao
Look up some radiation pattern graphs for wall/ceiling/directional antennas.
"Stick" antennas direct RF in a /mostly/ flat disk perpendicular to the antenna. For a typical 1-2 floor house it's probably good enough to cover an entire floor, with some coverage of the floor above/below, they're pretty much the most basic antenna you can get.
Ceiling APs also direct RF in a "disk" around then, but much more of it is directed downwards than outwards. Beyond that antenna design gets much more complicated with flat arrays and beam-forming that can pretty much direct RF right at clients. 60Ghz 802.11ad used in WiGig applications exclusively uses beam-forming array antennas to direct all (almost) of the RF to clients because the attenuation even in air is so great that a typical omnidirectional antenna is useless because the EIRP is way too high.