Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Increased radiation with more powerful wifi antenna?

  1. #1 Increased radiation with more powerful wifi antenna? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    43
    I have the awus036h 1000mw network card. I had been using the default 2db antenna but the signal reliability is very poor so I am considering upgrading to a 15db antenna.

    I have heard mixed responses as to whether a higher gain antenna increases the radiation risk. Some say that it doesn't increase the actual power of the awus so wouldn't make a difference while other things I have read say it will have an effect because the antenna increases the amount it radiates.

    I have yet to speak to someone who's information I could trust on this matter or any kind of corroborative statements so decided to post here to perhaps receive more reliable information.

    So does increasing the size of the antenna actually increase the amount of radiation it puts out and if so is it by a considerable degree that it would making it much more of a health risk than with the stock antenna?

    Note: my antenna/awus device will be stationed about 2 meters from me in another room separated by a plasterboard wall.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,126
    A receiver antenna does not radiate. A transmitter does. Do you know what you have?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    43
    A receiver antenna does not radiate. A transmitter does. Do you know what you have?
    I have the awus036h 1000mw network card.
    I am not sure what you are referring to. I know I have that card and have a default antenna which I am thinking of upgrading.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman
    A receiver antenna does not radiate. A transmitter does. Do you know what you have?
    This seems to be the antenna for a wireless connection between a computer and a hub. That requires 2-way communication. The antenna had better be both for the transmitter and receiver.

    edit: description here http://alfaawus036hreview.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    43
    The router antenna is not the problem as it isn't near me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    No, it radiates the same amount of energy. It radiates it in a tighter beam, however, so the density of the waves is higher. That's why you have to lower the output to stay within legal limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Synergy
    The router antenna is not the problem as it isn't near me.
    That is not the issue. Your local antenna is both a receiving and a transmitting antenna. The field strength at your location will almost certainly be highest when you are transmitting -- unless the hub is very powerful or your antenna is very directional.

    I tend to doubt that there is a health issue, but don't have any hard data (field strengths, physiological studies) to prove it.

    Reading between the lines, that card seems to be designed to steal wireless internet service. Doing that could be hazardous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    No, it radiates the same amount of energy. It radiates it in a tighter beam, however, so the density of the waves is higher. That's why you have to lower the output to stay within legal limits.
    Hmm from what I've read the legal limits are based on not causing interference for other devices rather than safety- not totally if it was tons more but within these ranges.

    Well the fact it radiates it in a tighter beam does that cause it to be more hazardous?

    I was reading that the hazard zone would be the 'near field' but the calculation seemed complicated so I didn't work out how to do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •