pfflyer
Well-known member
You did try to turn it though.Since this is turning into an unusually rational and calm discussion of this topic, I will add an additional point for completeness:
You did try to turn it though.Since this is turning into an unusually rational and calm discussion of this topic, I will add an additional point for completeness:
Well, my results are in and its not pretty. I tried 3 weboost antennas temporarily mounted to my roof.
As I mentioned previously, in a rural area with a decent signal (5-10 Mbps), the weboost greatly increased the signal strength and “bars” while REDUCING the actual throughput by 50%.
Where I live in Florida its really hard to find an area with a poor Verizon signal, so I drove a few hours to a state park that is a perfect testing scenario. Poor unusable signal, yet not so poor as to be nonexistent and hopeless.
And the results are – the weboost failed completely. Again, it dramatically boasted the signal, but I still got zero data.
I am an engineer and a scientist, so I am puzzled by these results. While my engineering skills are definitely not in the area of cell signal processing, its not so hard to believe that the weboost could work. Its very large, heavy, and expensive, and should be able to out-perform a cell phone in some tasks, not to mention it uses a huge antenna mounted on the roof.
And the net (and even this post) has lots of anecdotal stories of impressive performance, including some that seem very through and analytical. So I am finding it hard to believe that its a sort of mass hysteria and imagination that these things work.
Still, most people believe in all sorts of things that are not actually true…
I am kind of kicking myself over one thing though. I didn’t really properly test voice and text, and because of the way cell service works, that will go over a different signal than data, although this is changing. And at one point one text did go through.
So I may return there shortly to test again on voice and text only, as even a small increase there would be a huge improvement, maybe even enough to convince me to mount the weboost anyway.
Its also possible that since I have only tested in 2 scenarios, the device works in others, and I guess its possible I just have a bad device.
So I am not really any closer to having an answer.
The problem is pretty basic and simple - the weBoost is simply amplifying a bad signal. It does not perform any form of signal regeneration. When installed weBoost transforms a bad signal into a more powerful bad signal but the signal isn't improved at all. I have one of these that I used all over the western states including areas with no cellular signal at all and at this point it is sitting on a shelf. I have been part of quite a number of threads on this topic in this forum and am firmly in the camp of using external MIMO antennae with Verizon hotspots.
They are popular because they are easy to understand ("Amplify your cell signal". Who wouldn't want that?), and they SEEM to work because they instantly add bars. ...and you just spent all that money. ...and you put in all that effort to install them. ...and everybody on the Internet says they are great. ...and once in a while it really does help.I am reluctantly beginning to think you may be right, although its still hard to believe is so popular.
This unit from AntennasPlus is omnidirectional, works well, and is very cost-effective:Yes, I have been reading threads on MiMo antenna for quite a while, but haven't really seen any recent omni directional ones that are well reviewed.
Hey, I just wanted to confirm that this is essentially just an antenna that plugs into the portable router? Seems pretty simple to setup if its mostly plug and play, any other steps/tips for setting one up? I think this is the route we will go since WeBoost seems to just repeat a weak signal.They are popular because they are easy to understand ("Amplify your cell signal". Who wouldn't want that?), and they SEEM to work because they instantly add bars. ...and you just spent all that money. ...and you put in all that effort to install them. ...and everybody on the Internet says they are great. ...and once in a while it really does help.
I have been in this denial mode each and every time I have tried a new generation of these devices. I have finally taken the time to do the actual research and now understand that they CAN'T do what everybody wants them to do, as alichty has explained above.
This unit from AntennasPlus is omnidirectional, works well, and is very cost-effective:
https://sprinter-source.com/forum/showthread.php?p=444714#post444714
A decent MiMo setup is not difficult or expensive, and it can actually work.
Yes, it is plug and play. A few things to note, though:Hey, I just wanted to confirm that this is essentially just an antenna that plugs into the portable router? Seems pretty simple to setup if its mostly plug and play, any other steps/tips for setting one up? I think this is the route we will go since WeBoost seems to just repeat a weak signal.
Could you elaborate? Just stick it on the metal cab portion you are saying? Its seems most use a small galvanized piece of metal on the roof, and from what I read it doesn't make a difference as long as its 9" or so. But I'd be interested to hear otherwise.Best/only Ground Plane is the Mercedes Chassis.
I have the same MAX BR1 in my 2014 Unity, and I use the WiFi signal to connect Apple iPhones, Samsung and AT&T flip phones. I also use the Cellualr signal from the Sure Call on all three devices, and have not seen any differences with any of the phones using either cellular or WiFi connections.I was just thinking about him! And wondering how his Newmar was working out. I will need to research his thread on this cell connection issue. I wonder if the type or brand of phone or device matters, too? Can they all reap the same benefits?
Could you elaborate? Just stick it on the metal cab portion you are saying? Its seems most use a small galvanized piece of metal on the roof, and from what I read it doesn't make a difference as long as its 9" or so. But I'd be interested to hear otherwise.
My understanding is that it isn't mass that matters, but surface area. The ground plane acts as a mirror, reflecting the RF waves up to the antenna, effectively doubling the length of the antenna. A thin conductive plate will do. At these wavelengths, I don't think the required area is very largeYou are correct. It just has to have enough iron mass to act as a ground reference. Since it's iron (I used a galvanized plate from Home Despot) the magnetic bases on a lot of the various antenna offerings stick to it just fine.
No problem - the plate I grabbed off the shelf had both the surface area and massMy understanding is that it isn't mass that matters, but surface area. The ground plane acts as a mirror, reflecting the RF waves up to the antenna, effectively doubling the length of the antenna. A thin conductive plate will do. At these wavelengths, I don't think the required area is very large