boosting over 84 mw? possible?

[xtraya]

Of course, you know for linsksys hack, and power boost for more than 200 mW

My friend tryed this with alchemy fw on linksys wrtg54g, and it works but after few days, unit becomes allmost dead with wifi signal. of course, it becomes too hot.after that extreme boosting, unit becomes very unstable and with bad radio signal.

is something possible to do with 500g?

[Styno]

Well, if it kills you WIFI chip why would you?

The highest power output does not mean the best connection. But hey, if you want you LAN to reach 1000 km just apply 230 V~ to the unit. It will not last long, but hey you are the first to have such a range ...

[Antiloop]

lol@styno

anyway

it will RAPE your wireless signal, therefor nobody is interested in it

also some measurements by Philips Semiconducator have proven that it's bad for the quality of the signal
see this thread https://wl500g.info/showthread.php?t=12

as you already know it's the best way to use a antenna or similair stuff (you were doing already so right?)

[WlanMan]

Hi

84mW is much more then you will get out of the most wlan chipsets, so be happy. And since it drives the amplifier to its maximum the signal to noise will raise rapidly. not to mention that a part of the extra power is needet for aging compensation of the amplifier chip over time.

Like antiloop said, use a direkting antenna, like a tin can one, you get 12db with no efford which is a 4x Power boost. and it again multiplyes if the other side has one too. So for wlan interlinks, antenna is best way to get high range. Your users wont get any better performance with hacked amplifieers like in the linksys, if they dont have this hack either. and if they had, an antenna is saver and has no effect so SNR ratio.

Greets

[xtraya]

Sensitivity, of course is more important factor than a power of chipset. If your card (unit) have good sensitivity (prism 2.5), signal of -80 dBi gives a full performanse (-90 dBi is minimum useful signal) . Some expensive units (cisco,alvarion...) have sensitivity of -96. But I heard about some new generation of atheros chips, wich will have sense of more than -110 dBi.

Of course with factory made grid anntenas (Hypergain,Andrew...) you can make good links. If it is not enough, change polarisation

over 84 mW hack was just question of possibility.

can or cannot? is it a just an flag in some register inside chipset or something else.

[Antiloop]

Sensitivity, of course is more important factor than a power of chipset. If your card (unit) have good sensitivity (prism 2.5), signal of -80 dBi gives a full performanse (-90 dBi is minimum useful signal) . Some expensive units (cisco,alvarion...) have sensitivity of -96. But I heard about some new generation of atheros chips, wich will have sense of more than -110 dBi.

Of course with factory made grid anntenas (Hypergain,Andrew...) you can make good links. If it is not enough, change polarisation

over 84 mW hack was just question of possibility.

can or cannot? is it a just an flag in some register inside chipset or something else.

perhaps it is just

wl txpwr (which will give 255mW or something as value standard)
but txpwr is obsolote now

they now use wl txpwr2 if I'm right..

[rlincke]

I am following this discussion about the radio power option in quite some forums, and as far as I understood now, the value one can specify is the nominal output power of the antenna in mW, and that for my Asus WL-500g the maximum value is 84 mW.
Now I wonder, if it matters at all, if change it from the default 19 mW to 84 mW, since the nominal output power of my Dell TrueMobile 1400 wireless card is anyway only 15 mW.
Not sure, it it is like this, but it sounds to me, that changing the radio power of the router increases its reach, but not the one of my notebook, and hence does not increase the total distance (reach of the network with a bi-directional transmission) I can have between my notebook and the router. My notebook might be able to receive signals from the router in a longer distance, but the router might not receive the reply signals, since the notebook does not transmit that far.
Am I missing something?
Maybe I could even reduce the default radio power from 19 to 15 mW, not loosing practically any network distance (since my notebook does not transmit longer), but reducing health and security risks. Security risks, because eavesdrop distance is reduced.
Maybe somebody can comment on this. Thank you.