JJ fired this volley in news:049e72f5-afe7-4eea- snipped-for-privacy@m22g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
At the distance you're talking about, the PS-2 units would probably work through two walls, but why? They are (despite our most-wise commentor's statement) built to be weatherproof, and have proven to be (so far) through several strong side-ways-blowing thunderstorms we've had here.
They aren't 'consumer crap', being at least a couple of notches higher than that on the quality-of-construction scale.
Also, John or Jeff are more knowlegable than I am about obstacles, but my sense is that a single 3" trunk in the line of sight will not prove to be much of a limitation, unless it were smack up against the antenna. I think that the 6'-8' width of your corridor would be more so, but I still think you'll be fine at that short a shot.
Should be obvious. If WiFi needs a direct line of sight, then it does not work in the house between rooms. If you system can detect a WiFi signal using conventional hardware, then the same system using a directional antenna will be even more reliable.
You can take that one step farther by purchasing two identical WiFi stations that operate in a bridging mode. A direction antenna on both would mean an even more reliable connection and higher data rates. Then when leaves arrive, the data rate is not diminished.
Of course, directional antennas can be mounted outside - the WiFi transceiver / routers nearby and inside. Just another advantage to simplify the installation. Just another in a long list of reasons why even cutting tree branches is too much labor.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:41:09 -0800 (PST), JJ wrote in :
They will attenuate (weaken) the signal. How much depends on the kind of wall. An exterior wall with foil-backed insulation will kill the signal entirely. Also watch out for chicken wire under stucco. There's an attenuation table in the wiki below.
Run an Ethernet cable outside; mount the unit there; and supply Power over Ethernet. By far the best method.
It will go through that pretty well if placed properly.
Because they reflect the signal all over the place, resulting in multipath problems.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:58:47 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in :
Bad advice, because that won't work with most devices. A point-to-point link is made with two different types of devices, (1) a wireless access point (host) and (2) a wireless Ethernet client bridge. Most wireless access points cannot be configured as clients, and vice versa. Be sure to get the right types of devices.
When leaves arrive the reliability and data rate will probably be diminished even with directional antennas.
A lot of signal will be lost over any coax distance, and that won't be simpler -- much better to put the radio outside with the antenna.
John Navas wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
And again....what does that mean ?
Or are you just going to either not reply, or just reply (while completely ignoring any and all other comments made in this post, with 'with that comment you conceeded' ?
Wi-Fi (IPA: /?wa?fa?/) is a trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance, originally founded in 1999 as WECA (Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance). The organisation comprises more than 300 companies, whose products are certified by the Wi-Fi Alliance, based on the IEEE 802.11 set of standards (also called WLAN (Wireless LAN) and Wi-Fi). This certification grants the interoperability between different wireless devices.
I am FAAAAR from blind, if you were talking about me. I've been in the wireless biz since 1983, in all capacities from designing product, to state-wide deployments.
Perhaps I wasn't too clear. The backbone is fiber because it aggregates the bandwidth of many copper equivalent connections. The distribution to the home and inside wiring, is usually copper because as you note, the bandwidth doesn't justify the expense.
Not quite that routine. I just got a look at the topology map for a new university building. All fiber inside the walls. Media converters from fiber to copper where necessary for legacy hardware. All the server closets were fiber. The reason for all the fiber was the 100 meter limit for 100baseT. 100baseFX is limited to 400 meters for half-duplex and about 2,000 meters for full duplex. That saves on quite a few wall closets crammed full of switches and repeaters (hubs).
The next generation is not CAT6. It's fiber. There's as spec for
10GigE or 10GBASE-T running on copper, but it's limited to 55 meters. There are specs for longer range 10GigE, but they all run on fiber. Some details at:
If you ask me a question, it's consider good form not to supply the answer. However, in this case, I agree. Fiber is too expensive for desktop applications. It is NOT too expensive for backhaul applications, which is what a wireless point to point bridge does.
Wrong. There has not been a single new copper bundle installed in my neighborhood. The last one was after the earthquake in 1989. Copper was supplied only because FEMA insisted that the downtown rehabilitation money be used only for replacing existing infrastructure, not new services or expansion. Everything else has been fiber. For example, all the emergency centers have dedicated dark fiber installed by Comcast. Most are only using the equivalent of 2 DSL lines, but the possibility for future expansion is there. Comcast also installed a rather fancy fiber ring around the SF Bay area, including Monterey Bay. It's used for video, internet, and IP telephony. There's still plenty of coax running the distribution system, but even that's being replaced by fiber as necessary.
For Ma Bell, they've continued to replace copper with copper as necessary. New installs are all fiber in the ground, and copper in the air. There haven't been too many developments in the area, so I don't know their exact configuration.
Because nobody has produced a cheap fiber interface. Also, if Verizon is going to demultiplex in the pedestal, they may as well do the media conversion at the same time.
Actually, there are proposed home networking standards to do exactly that. As usual, Europe leads the way:
The big advantage is almost instant UL and regulatory approval. The limiting factor is lack of NEC and building code specifications. Also, the lack of a practical connector system. I'm staring at my pile of assorted fiber patch cables. I see 5 different connectors. That's too many.
Advantages to fiber in the home.
Automatic regulatory approval.
No RFI issues.
Very high speeds possible (video).
Multi-media function (video, audio, internet, alarm, satellite TV, IP phone, appliance control, security, etc). On jack does it all.
Can be run along with power wiring (in conduit).
Fairly impervious to environmental issues such as lightning, water, smog, sun, etc. Unfortunately not impervious to vermin, kids, dogs, kittens, etc.
At this time, you're correct. It's not justifiable in the home. That's mostly because most networked home appliances are supplied with copper interfaces. There are some exceptions, such as ToshLink, but that's for audiophiles who usually spend more money than necessity would dictate.
Hmmm... Checking eBay, there are a bunch of IBM gigabit ethernet fiber PCI cards for about $40. Of course, the copper equivalent goes for about $15, so you're right, copper is cheaper.
As I indicated, at 300ft, methinks CAT5e is the correct approach. However, I also mentioned that the cost of the fiber, copper, coax, or barbed wire is not the determining factor. It's the cost of burying the conduit, or suspending the cable that costs money. Also, I forgot to mention any media converters that might be necessary. That really give CAT5e a cost advantage as most hardware doesn't require any.
At 300ft, you're probably correct. However, if you want equal reliability and preformance, you'll find that wireless is more expensive than copper. I did a bid once (which I didn't get) comparing the cost of trenching versus wireless. For equal bandwidth (i.e. 45Mbits/sec guaranteed), fiber and trenching was cheaper.
Ummm.... you've said that about 4 times.
I bid fiber where I know the data rates will eventually exceed the capacity of copper and/or wireless. I especially bid fiber where there are safety issues (i.e. doctors offices, hospitals, industrial plants, and really old building full of dangerous wiring).
uh-oh, walls and windows (and tree trunks) usually aren't that bad (unless the walls have foil backed insulation), but the sliding door glass may be your biggest problem... the glass in sliding doors usually has stuff in the glass to limit the fading of carpets etc inside by the sun (blocks em transmission, same for windows in some office buildings, good signal inside, but step outside and nada)... As a test, try it with a sliding glass door open and closed, and watch the signal srength change.....
Multipath is alleviated using a helical antenna as was posted previously. If making a connection using conventional hardware, then a connection using one directional antenna would work. Making an antenna using two directional antennas with WiFi routers that have the bridging option (typically must be from same manufacturers) would work even better.
Of course, this is best designed using something that can measure WiFi signal strength in dBs. Five bar measurements will be all but useless. Even the better computer manufacturers provide software for free that can measure and report signal to noise ratios in dB.
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com fired this volley in news:2368d003-73ad-499f-ab57- snipped-for-privacy@q36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
Again, the product we've been arguing about has both hardware indicators and software tools to measure the radiated and received signal strengths, and to calculate S/N ratios.
Considering you don't have line of sight, I'd choose the Nano2, myself. It's got a little more gain, sensitivity and transmit power and also external antenna jack.
If it does not cut the mustard with the built in antenna, you could always throw a high gain grid antenna or panel on it as well. Better chance of success, more flexibility for just $30 more per unit.
Also, they've been out for a while, the loco is just about to be released.
I also want to point out that these Nanostations are ideal for outdoor installation since they are weatherproof and have Passive Power Over Ethernet with included power injectors. That means that all you have to do to set them up outside is run one ethernet cable discreetly through a hole or other penetration to the outside. You can run up to
30 meters (if I remember correctly) from the Nanostation to your indoor router, AP, switch or single PC using the passive POE. Same at your neighbor's end. Run the cable inside to his router passing it through the power injector first.
These devices are small and discreet. Weatherproof. I'd follow Jeff's advice and mount 5 feet off the ground, minimum. Might consider going with the Nano5 instead considering his comment about the smaller Fresnel zone.
These devices are setup for pipe mounting, so to attach to the wall, you'll need to buy something like this:
formatting link
or this:
Ubiquiti Networks Window/Wall Mounting kit for NanoStation. MSRP $19.
Not exactly. When a circular polarized signal hits a reflector, the "sense" change. Right Hand Circular Polarization (RHCP) becomes Left Hand CP. Of course a RHCP antenna will reject a LHCP signal, so single bounce, and an odd number of bounces, results in the elimination of multipath. However, an even number of bounces is not cancelled by the reverse sense in any way.
The question is how much is single bounce versus more than one bounce? I dunno. My guess(tm) is that a vast majority of indoor reflections are multiple bounces, resulting in alleviation of perhaps half the multipath problems at best. For outdoors, the big problem is always ground bounce, which is usually a single bounce. For that, CP works nicely for multipath elimination.
As an added bonus, Circular Polarization is great for making the client antenna orientation insensitive. This is especially helpful with laptop antennas buried at into the top of the LCD screen, where they appear horizontally polarized. Meanwhile, they're trying to talk to an access point that typically has a vertically polarized antenna. With CP, there's a -3dB loss going between CP and linear polarization, but it's worth it to prevent fades causes by cross polarization.
In other words, CP is generally a win, but not under all circumstances and configuration.
dB is a ratio or a relative measurements. I think you mean -dBm, with is signal strength in dB relative to 1 milliwatt into 50 ohms.
I think you'll find these rather inconsistent and erratic. They're great for making comparisons between to antennas or configurations. However the abssolute signal strength in dBm (actually -dBm) is usually horribly inaccurate. I think that I can supply numbers if you really want them (and if I can find them).
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.