Just curious how far your Wi-Fi access point is from your desktop computer

Hi Trader,

Why must you insist on never posting with any purposefully helpful intent? o The less we challenge you - the more are emboldened to waste our time

The last time you tried to play these silly games, was when I had asked a specific technical question on choosing, buying, repairing, mounting, & balancing my own SUV tires at home - where I ignored the fact that then, as now, you had nothing of value to add to the Usenet potluck where we all bring to the table what value we can offer each other.

Remember that? o No?

Well, let me refresh your memory then, OK? o Did you ever have a batch of tires that just wouldn't seal after the final bead?

Do you remember your "added value" then, Trader? o No?

Well then, allow me to refresh your memory, Trader:

Notice you added zero purposefully helpful technical value then... o As now...

Where, in that case, don't you think EVERYONE knows that they can simply pay someone else to debug and fix all their technical problems, Trader?

Do you think that your advice was even slightly helpful, Trader? O Really?

Let's get back on to this topic of explaining to the members of this newsgroup that, if they need it, they "can" extend the range of their Wi-Fi connections, at about the same price they're paying now for "their stuff".

They just need to know what this stuff does for them in terms of power... o And how this stuff connects, specifically, to their desktop computers.

In a further attempt at being purposefully helpful, Trader, I just snapped and then carefully annotated this shot of one of my old desktops showing what a typical desktop owner "can do" in terms of connecting to a Wi-Fi access point, when running a Cat5 cable to that connection, is infeasible.

Hi Trader,

Why am I an "asshole" because you don't understand basic things?

At the risk of asking the obvious, did you even LOOK at this picture?

If you looked at it, at the risk of proffering another obvious question o Do you comprehend that each of those "antennas" can connect to Wi-Fi?

One more super obvious question for you, Trader, just to be clear: o Do you realize that the Wi-Fi connection can be anything they have?

Um ... like their typical Wi-Fi-enabled SOHO router, Trader. o Or, anything that's typical Wi-Fi, Trader.

Let's summarize the basics for you, Trader, shall we? o Any typical Ethernet o Any typical Wi-Fi

Let us know when you comprehend that basic fact. o Because the point is that this power is available to everyone. o At about the same costs as what they paid for what they have now

Only what's better about this setup, Trader, is o It's vastly more powerful than their typical home setup today.

Which, if they need that power... o Is a good thing, is it not?

He_4 has been kind of cranky ever since President Trump was exonerated.

If the best you can do is make a long post just to denigrate another it is you wasting everyone else's time. Your mother would be ashamed of you and your values.

OK. I'll ignore Trader_4 for the remainder of this thread... o Starting now.

Besides, I think I've almost fully shot my wad on this topic unless... o Unless one of the recipients wants to try it themselves.

They might have questions since you have to know what to buy o And you have to know how to set it up

Which depends on what you're doing with it.

For example, if you're simply "painting the pool" o So that the kids can be on their phone far from the house

The software switches will be different than if you're connecting to an AP.

Rest assured, this equipment can do anything you typically want to do o Where the switches inside the router software make it what it is.

In summary, I haven't covered the software because it would only matter if someone needs help setting theirs up - otherwise - all that really matters is two things: o The distances people volunteered are real - and very possible o If you simply purchase this equipment - instead of the 'consumer' stuff

The good news is that it costs just about the same as consumer stuff o But the bad news is that it's usually (not always) a bit larger stuff

Hi Grumpy Old White Guy,

I've been on Usenet for as long as anyone here. o Where I delve into facts as deeply as anyone else does

Hence, I've posted so many helpful tutorials that I long ago lost count of how many, and while I've posted so many questions and have received so many helpful responses that I've lost count ....

Never once have I delved into politics on this newsgroup.

Thanks Lewis for helping to clarify, for Lucifer, what's possible, since Lucifer, like nospam, seems to brazenly & repeatedly deny what the rest of us know works just fine, even down to denying that decibels are used to indicate power (where Lucifer & nospam appear to be twins in their ability to brazenly deny what everyone else already knows to be facts).

To further illustrate switching from Ethernet to Wi-Fi & vice versa, this picture graphically shows the mechanical components inherent in this common and constant switcheroo between Ethernet & Wi-Fi & back:

This home-built $50 WiFi-to-Ethernet-and-Ethernet-to-Wifi setup also works:

Using the term "modem" for my "transceiver" so people with cable can better understand, the Internet signal goes from the "modem" inside the house, to the SOHO router next to the "modem", and then out an RJ45 port on the SOHO router to this radio & antenna which is outside the house, which either points back at the house, to "paint" the inaccessible regions of the house or ...

Or ...

You'll notice the antenna is on a loose swivel, which allows me to turn it around to paint the pool, which is a few hundred feet from the house, where painting the pool allows cellphones to connect to this AP, where the pool is too far from the house for cellphones to connect to the SOHO router WiFi connected to the "modem" inside the house.

In quite a different setup, this similar setup allows a desktop, say one that is outside, say, in the barn which is too far from the house, to easily connect back to the WiFi at the house, or, if desired, to a WiFi access point which can be miles away from this stand-alone desktop PC:

And still get great signal strength of around -55dBm of power:

In fact, there are so many things you can do with these inexpensive radios, that I have them scattered all over, since I have plenty of them to play with to connect anything I want to connect to, if it has Internet and if I know the security setup keys:

What's nice, also, is you get great graphics out of the signal strength debuggers on Android phones, which allow you to ascertain exactly which access points have the best signal strength in whatever spot you're in:

Given this all "just works", I'm not sure why Lucifer, who claims to have been a "communications technician", says it doesn't work, so I appreciate that Lewis attempted to clarify that the switcheroo between Ethernet and Wi-Fi and from Wi-Fi to Ethernet ... is so simple ... it just works.

Uh.. Yeah.. Your "desktop" isn't connecting to jack squat. You've got two Ubiquiti radios linked together. An Ubiquiti radio is connected to another Ubiquiti radio that's a half dozen miles away.

When someone says "my desktop is connected to" the implication is that you're connecting to something using the built-in wifi of the laptop. Needless to say, there's no way you'd be making a 6 mile link at 144mbps with the 30mw (average) laptop transmitter. You'd also need 20-30 feet of elevation to keep the transmitter's Fresnel zones clear.

No you aren't. You're getting 23dbm which is db in relation to a milliwatt. Neglecting to mention the "m" makes your statement worthless since db's are just a scale.

Dude, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Of course not. Arlen's the Usenet equivalent of a turd in a punch bowl.

Hi Paul,

As you're aware, this isn't my first rodeo with trolls on Usenet, where, tactically, I respond as a mirror to their implied intent.

Generally you are purposefully helpful, as am I. o So I won't quibble about your answer (as it was a fair guess).

In addition, I will try to add technical value, as you tried to do. o Since I act as a mirror to perceived implied intentions.

For that photo

That antenna is simply connected to my router inside the house, which then beams 2.4GHz Wi-Fi signal at up to 600mW (about 27 dBi)

Note that for about the price of a typical SOHO router of about 15 to 20 decibels, this access point allows up to 27 dBi + 15 dBm = 42 dB, which is vastly more powerful than any typical SOHO router access point you've ever experienced in your entire life, I'd wager.

I repeat what the trolls accused me of not understanding, which they themselves simply fabricated, which is that every 10 decibels is 10 times the power so for there to be that many decibels difference, is huge, at about the price as your normal consumer equipment is at the box stores.

Of course, this stuff isn't sold in the box stores, most likely, so you have to simply KNOW about this stuff, which was, partly, the intention of this purposefully helpful thread.

Bear in mind, the radio is always attached directly to the back of that antenna, as is the radio attached directly to the back of this 2.4GHz Wi-Fi antenna in my house right now.

Likewise, the radio is attached directly to this 5GHz Wi-Fi antenna, Paul:

Perhaps most importantly, this 2.4GHz WiFi radio is physically a part of the antenna - which means you can't possibly separate the two - they're one unit - which - of course - is why we refer to such things, colloquially - as "aim the antenna" will ya...

Please look at that latter situation, Paul.

If you remove the radio - the "dish" has a huge hole in it that does nothing, since the "horn" is on the radio, and not on the parabolic dish.

The point is that the radio and the antenna are considered a single unit (and, in fact, are only sold as a single unit), just as when you buy a new car, the tires and wheels are sold as a single unit.

And, more importantly when you're trying to help people get stuff done, when I write a tutorial for how to mount your tires at home:

Just as when I write a tutorial for how to balance your tires at home,

The fact I'm trying to explain, is what you try to write something like a o Tutorial for how to balance your SUV tires at home o Tutorial for how to aim your WiFi antenna at home All you should need to do is mention just once that when we say o "mount the tires", it's assumed intelligent adults know SUV tires are directly attached to wheels Just as when we say: o "aim the antenna", it's assumed intelligent adults know WiFi radios are directly attached to antennas

Typo.

Since the trolls here can't everv add value, but can quibble about meaningless typos like squabbling little girls, that was dBm, not dBi...

Likewise, with this typo...

Reverse the "i" with the "m" ... and add "EIRP", where this correction is necessary becuase the child-like trolls will have a field day over a typo - since they can't actually add on-topic technical value...

More correctly, since the trolls will have a field day noting there are four of them, let's just say the wheels, tires, and car, are sold as a single unit.... to keep the moronic trolls at bay ... because they can't actually contribute on-topic technical value - so they quibble like schoolgirls instead.

Yikes. In addition to the "dBi" and "dBm" thinkos...

There was, in the sig, yet another typo ... "impedance" (not imedence")...

Note the main reason for having to correct the typos is that those silly little girls on this newsgroup who have nothing to add, will endlessly quibble about the typos just like you see happening in this thread about "antenna" versus "radio", where, this set in my basement shows the antenna and radio can be considered one unit for practical purposes such as the instruction "aim the antenna, will ya".

As I noted with tires, those who quibble about the colloquial use of something as common as decibels would never get to the more important points, such as where we discuss in a tutorial how to mount the red dot

Where the main point is that if we're trying to get something done, then quibbling about the fact that tires and wheels are different is something only those who have zero value to add, will quibble about.

Sure, those trolls are MOST of the posts in this thread. o But the fact remains the trolls added _zero_ on topic technical value.

Having said that, almost always, the Wi-Fi radios we're talking about are mounted directly to the antenna (just as SUV tires are mounted directly to the wheels), there are cases when the Wi-Fi radio is simply "close" to the antenna, as shown in this box I built myself a few years ago out of spare parts:

In that case, the radio is "close" to the antenna, as shown in this picture which shows that the old desktop can be placed hundreds of feet from the house in the barn, and it will still connect either to the access points scattered about the property...

Hi Johann Beretta,

Here's a shot of the barn desktop which shows that setup better:

Notice that barn desktop has no WiFi card; it only has Ethernet.

And yet, it's connected by WiFi using this Mikrotik equipment:

Is that barn desktop connected to Wi-Fi over its Ethernet, or not?

You are astute enough to be worth further detail, as you know what you're talking about (while others don't, so I simplified things for them).

For you, we can dive directly into the actual unexemplified details. o Here is a more explicitly detailed set of pictures & screenshots & specs.

My desktop, at this very moment, doesn't even have built-in Wi-Fi, but it does have built-in Ethernet (and yes, I'm using that term colloquially).

This is a shot of the radio configuration that Ethernet is tied to:

The CAT5 out of the desktop connects to a $50 Mikrotik routerboard

Whose output is attached to a 15dBi $40 2.4GHz wiregrid antenna:

Where the signal strength, at this very moment, is about

-40dBm with a Tx/Rx CCQ of about 80%, S/N of about 75dB.

Does this detailed setup look more like what you were expecting to see?

I live on the top of a mountain, overlooking the Silicon Valley.

If you only knew how many access points I can 'see', you'd be shocked (I guess the theoretical number could perhaps be in the millions, in fact, depending on antenna gain & radio sensitivity & noise floor on my side of course, but I never counted them ... suffice to say it's a LOT).

This is a written medium. If you can't be bothered to be concise and accurately convey an idea, what makes you think we want to waste our time figuring out what you meant.

Very fitting. You like to look down on people.

More like 46 to 57 feet antenna elevation for 80-100% Fresnel zone clearance. Plug in 6 miles for the distance and 2.4 GHz for the frequency:

On 10/14/19 8:55 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote: <snip>

Unlikely. I own a wireless ISP (WISP) in Southern California. I've got a number of Ubiquiti sectors and parabolics on mountain tops. I've picked up signals (San Onofre Visitor WiFi as one example) from over 60 miles away.

You only need 60% clearance to achieve full speed. My fresnel calculator says 56 feet for 2.4 GHz and 60% of 56 is 33.6. I was a bit off, admittedly, but I was in the ballpark for an off-the-cuff estimate.