On 10/30/2012 03:22 PM, Julian Calaby wrote:
Hi Ben,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It appears hard to get well-shielded u.fl (IPEX) to SMA pigtails, and all of
the
modern ath9k NICs I've seen use u.fl connectors on the NIC.
I have found a vendor that will do double-shielded 1.32mm cable, and I have
some of those
on order, but the way u.fl connectors are made it seems there is always a
bit of un-shielded
cable where the connector is crimped onto the cable.
I am curious if anyone has any suggestions or experience with connecting
u.fl NICs to
SMA cables in a highly shielded manner...
I have an awful feeling that it's simply not going to happen - I would
guess from what you've described that the u.fl connector is designed
to be cheap, small and easy and not really designed for "real" work
like what you're doing with it. I'm guessing that the signal leakage
through the connector is probably not a problem for the manufacturers
as they're always shielded inside a computer case - i.e. it complies
with the FCC rules.
I think it must be able to leak quite a bit before the FCC cares... Standard
single-shielded pigtails are quite noisy, nevermind the connectors...
But anyway...I was thinking something like this (but with different
gender u.fl side) and some sort of physical attachment option to keep
it on the NIC might be interesting:
http://www.pimfg.com/Product-Detail/000-SMA-UFL
For all I know, the NIC itself may leak worse than the u.fl pigtail connector,
however...
Thanks,
Ben
Thanks,
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
