<snip>
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.
It's not quibbling to point out stuff that's patently incorrect. It doesn't do someone following the post any favors to let incorrect terms slip by. Microwave transceivers of the type we are discussing have outputs measured in dBm, not dB. The m is an important qualifier. It gives the goddamn baseline reference. 20 db means nothing. 20dbm means a whole lot. How can someone know how to convert 20 dbm to milliwatts if nobody gives the milliwatt reference?
It's also fairly obvious that someone is lacking in skill when they get the terminology wrong. Would you trust a doctor that used the wrong terms? I'd be highly suspicious of their training and I sure as hell wouldn't let someone operate on me who kept referring to my tibia as a cranium or something :)
You're passing yourself off as some sort of expert, from what I have read of your posts, but I have serious reservations about taking you seriously if you don't even know the lingua fraca of the industry.
I've been in this business, professionally, for almost a decade. I'd barely rate myself as an expert (maybe more of a really skilled journeyman). There's plenty of folks in this newsgroup who know a shit-ton more than I, and they don't get the terms wrong, which is just one minor indication they have a basic understanding of what they're talking about. The information they contribute pads out the rest, but they start with the basics and get them correct.
Hi Johann Beretta,
Johann, let's be realistic since we must assume "adults" live here.
Let's take advantage of your skills to FURTHER our capabilities! o What would you suggest for a home computer to extend the wifi range?
Let's assume you only want to go another hundred yards (meters) or so. o Or, maybe, you want the computer to connect to an AP only a mile away
What would you suggest to extend the Wi-Fi range of, oh, a typical desktop or laptop, to a hundred meters (or to a mile, kilometer) further from where it is currently maxing out?
Using your knowledge and intellect, Johann, what can you offer the team, by way of ADDED ADULT TECHNICAL VALUE that furthers their ability to connect to access points that they can't currently connect to, today?
If I'm using "decibels", and if someone on those three ngs doesn't know what they mean, and if they're older than, oh, say, fifth grade, then there is no hope for them anyway.
Seriously. o What are they doing posting their drivel about decibels on those ngs, if they're that ignorant of even the most basic of electronic terms.
They should just shut up if (a) they don't care to have this kind of power at home (b) they're so ignorant that the only thing they can find are typos (c) all they do (endlessly, day in and day out), is troll etc.
If they quibble about a misplaced "i" versus the "m", there's no hope for them to ever add any adult value to any topic on this newsgroup, Johann.
Seriously. o Only a moron would be confused by "decibel" in place of "dBm" or "dBi".
It's like quibbling over "yards" and "meters" when it doesn't matter.
A moron can't possibly add value o And certainly not by playing silly games around "radio" or "decibel".
You do NOT seem to be a moron - so why don't you use your intellect to ADD VALUE to the conversation, so that OTHERS can do what you and I can do.
What can we do, Johann? o We can connect WiFi to access points that are much farther away o With that, we can connect Ethernet to those distant access points o For about the costs as people are paying today o If they just knew how.
Specifically: o If they knew what the potential distances might be (if they need them) o And, if they knew what equipment to buy to get those distances o Where this equipment is not likely to be found in local box stores.
I consider that knowledge good added value. o If you don't consider that knowledge added value, then say so.
But please don't play childish games around typos & common terms.
I repeat that you seem to be the only one here who knows anything, so I just want to ask you to ADD ON-TOPIC ADULT VALUE where you can.
If you find a "real" mistake, then, by all means, state your claim. o I'm not afraid of facts because facts form the basis of my beliefs
However, don't play silly childish games around the use of the word "radio" or "decibel" or "antenna" or "aerial", etc., since everyone KNOWS what we mean when we talk colloquially about this stuff.
If they don't know, then they're simply too ignorant to educate anyway. o I ask those morons to stop wasting our time on childish semantic drivel
Bear in mind I set up WISP, along with my neighbors, for about 100 homes, where, trust me, here in the mountains above Silicon Valley, we're _all_ extremely well educated ... and where the fact is, NOBODY plays silly games around decibels and the like. We don't even say the "negative", since we KNOW that it's always going to be negative for example.
Only here, on Usenet, filled to the brim with poorly educated children, do they incessantly quibble about silly stupid semantic games (including thinkos and typos like accidentally switching the 'i' and 'm', when it doesn't matter in the conversation since only a fool would be confused.
Stop it Johann.
Just stop.
Playing silly games isn't going to help anyone.
Be an adult.
I can tell you know more than almost anyone who posted to date, Johann. o Don't waste that knowledge on silly childish games Johann.
Try to use your knowledge to further what people here can do, Johann.
There are rarely people on this ng who know anything Johann, where you, and people like Jeff Liebermann for example, can easily add more value than I can.
But you're not going to add value by playing silly semantic games. o It's like arguing that a tire isn't a wheel when someone says o "How can I balance my tires at home?"
It's childish.
But worse - it's a complete waste of your otherwise appreciable skills. o It's like quibbling over yards and meters, when it doesn't matter.
See above. o Everyone knows all this.
If, on a rooftop, I ask someone to "help me aim this antenna, will ya?" I don't expect endless quibbling about antennas having a radio attached.
Everyone knows this stuff. o Our goal, Johann, is to help them understand the stuff they don't know.
Which, as I see it for this thread: o The distance that people have reported to connect to WiFi APs o The ability to do that with any computer that has an Ethernet port o Using equipment that costs about as much as what they're paying today o But which is not sold in the typical consumer box stores they frequent
If you think the "added value" of this thread is to explain the difference between a "decibel" and a "dBm", then, by all means, start your lecture.
But don't position that lecture as a "correction", since everyone _knows_ what the distinction is in colloquial speech, Johann. Everyone.
Aurgh. You insist on adding _negative_ value, when you can simply add positive value by suggesting even _better_ ways to get WiFi distance at home.
This is the datasheet for one of my radios, Johann:
This is the datasheet for one of my antennas, Johann:
Do you think, even for a moment, that I don't know why, Johann? o Let's stop this silly game playing, Johann
If you want to start a lecture on the distinction between a decibel and a dBi and a dBm, then, by all means, start your lecture.
But do not position it as a "correction", since I said, from the start, I'm using colloquial terms - and - I told you - in this post - that we are all very well educated in this stuff Johann - so you should use your appreciable education to further our knowledge.
Using your knowledge and intellect, Johann, what can you offer the team, by way of ADDED ADULT TECHNICAL VALUE that furthers their ability to connect to access points that they can't currently connect to, today?
Jesus Christ, Johann. Stop playing silly games. o It's like quibbling over tires and wheels when it doesn't matter.
I'm asking others how far they connect via WiFi, and we received GOOD answers from those others (one was up to 12 kilometers (7 miles), where, I think you're smart enough to know that double that distance is possible with this equipment we've been discussing (at both ends, of course).
If the equipment is only at one end, then it's drastically limited by the weaker equipment, of course, but long distances are still possible.
One part of this thread's goal is to let the "adults" on this newsgroup realize how far they can connect WiFi at the same costs as they pay now for equipment.
For example, it amazes me that people buy "repeaters" in the local box stores, when, for about the same price, they can buy this Mikrotik or Ubiquiti equipment that gives them from ten times to a hundred times more power (and hence, correspondingly, more distance).
Ah. I knew you had more knowledge than anyone yet, who has posted!
Good. I like smart people. I can learn from smart people.
Let's spend our energies on ADVANCING our knowledge, instead of playing silly little semantic games. Shall we?
What would you suggest to the users here, for example, if they needed to extend their WiFi range of their desktop computer, to, oh, let's say, 100 yards (100 meters)?
HINT: Do not quibble that a yard and a meter are not exactly equivalent!
I could INSTANTLY tell, from your post, that you knew more than anyone else who has posted yet, simply based on the astute observations you made.
Let's take advantage of your skills to FURTHER our capabilities! o What would you suggest for a home computer to extend the wifi range?
Let's assume you only want to go another hundred yards (meters) or so. o Or, maybe, you want the computer to connect to an AP only a mile away
What would you suggest to extend the Wi-Fi range of, oh, a typical desktop or laptop, to a hundred meters (or to a mile, kilometer) further from where it is currently maxing out?
Let's take advantage of that adult technical value, if it exists, Johann. o What would they suggest for a home computer to extend the wifi range?
Let's assume we only want to go another hundred yards (meters) or so. o Or, maybe, we want the computer to connect to an AP only a mile away
What would you (or they) suggest to extend the Wi-Fi range of, oh, a typical desktop or laptop PC, to a hundred meters (or to a mile, kilometer) further from where it is currently maxing out?
Silence?
Hi Johann Beretta,
Usenet is a potluck - where everyone brings what value they can, to share.
to that end, I could tell, instantly, that you had more you could share than most people here (and we already know about Jeff Liebermann, who happens to live near where I am, who also knows a lot about this stuff).
This is great information that you are fully aware of the WiFi power of the type of equipment that we've been trying to discuss here as adults.
What brand do you mostly prefer in your WISP business? o And what specific model of radios?
Here, near where Jeff Liebermann lives (other side of the hill), we all started with the bullets, and then we trashed them for the nano's, which we trashed for the 2.4 GHz rockets, and then, finally, we're kind of happy on the 5GHz rockets.
Less noise for sure.
Since we remove the "old stuff", we end up with a lot of Mikrotik equipment, but we're mostly Ubiquiti.
How about you? o What brand/model equipment do you prefer to erect on rooftops, and why?
On 10/15/2019 11:09 AM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote: ...
?When I use a word,? Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ?it means just what I choose it to mean?neither more nor less.?
Hi Jeff,
You're aware we've been fumbling about this WISP stuff on our side of the hill for years (not as long as you, but still years), where, we started with Hughes, then Verizon (now Frontier, I think), then Surfnet, and Hilltop, Ridge, Cooper, ViaSat, etc., you name it, we've tried it.
Since it's a neighborhood effort, we've been learning on our own. o Mostly from failures - but we've had some good success also.
As such, you're likely aware, if you remember, we started with Mikrotik:
Using the spare equipment from all the mistakes, sort of like this:
Given that progression of mistakes, my current access point, for the Internet itself, has pretty good numbers of around 55 decibels (let's not quibble about the type or sign) with a clear view of the similarly setup access point miles away as shown in this screenshot below:
Where those numbers can be obtained by any user who has the line of sight necessary (as always) who also has the same equipment on the other side.
The main advantage though, of this thread, is to ascertain how far can people connect, line of sight, when they only have this equipment on one end.
To that end, my fundamental question, where I'd love to learn more from people like you and Johann who seem to know a LOT more than most people here, is what distances do you think are possible (assuming wholly unobstructed views and sufficient heights to clear the primary Fresnel Zone) for: a. A laptop or desktop that has Ethernet b. With AC power always assumed to be nearby (for the POE & desktop) c. With one of these antennas
Given ideal conditions (which pretty much exist where I live), how far do you think we could reasonably connect if we only had this equipment on one end, where, of course, the other end matters.
Let's assume the other end is, oh, I don't know, a typical SOHO WiFi router (what's that ... something like ... oh, maybe 18 decibels ... where I know and remember that you've studied this stuff and they lie in the specs - so we could simply assume whatever you think is the "real" EIRP obtained.
In summary, under ideal conditions, with, oh, say, a Rocket M5 as shown above, how far do you think a laptop/desktop could connect to a decent SOHO WiFI router line of sight (with the primary Fresnel Zone assumed clear).
You are in violation of federal law. The MAXIMUM permissible antenna gain, in the 2.4 GHz spectrum, with a 27 dBm transmitter is 9 dBi.
Of course it's more powerful than anything anybody has experienced. It's illegal.
Are you actually advocating for this?
Hi Paul,
You're generally purposefully helpful, as am I, where both of us like to help people do what we can do (it's why I've written so many tutorials on Usenet, for example), and, where we both learn from others who share their knowledge, in that process.
Hence, I'm happy to answer all your questions (if I can). o I always mirror the implied intent of every post (by strategic design).
You picked out a low power but conveniently small 1-piece contraption.
I looked but it doesn't actually say on the outside the model, where it's been so long that I've had it that I forgot exactly what it is (and I don't want to log in as I'd have to connect it directly to a laptop, etc.), and there are so many different PowerBeam models anyway ... but it's likely a powerbeam PBE-M5-400 (or similar) where we can look at the specs here:
Which shows that nice little $100 5GHz unit to be about 26 dBm transmit power plus about 25 dBi antenna gain, for an EIRP of about 51 decibels, which isn't too bad for less than a hundred bucks.
Bear in mind a "typical" SOHO router for about the same price, is, oh, I don't know, something like 20 decibels if you're lucky (if I'm wrong, it's OK to ream me with facts).
Think about the HUGE difference in power, where each set of 10 decibels is ten times the power, so 51 - 20 is about 30 decibels different, where that's 10 x 10 x 10 is about one thousand times the power of that typical SOHO router ... at about the same price.
BTW, those numbers seem kind of high to me - but I took 'em out of that spec sheet - where I always expect the power to be an order of magnitude or even two orders of magnitude better than your typical SOHO router - but not three orders of magnitude.
There are lots of similar one-piece models, where this one inside contains: o CPU Atheros MIPS 74 Kc, 560 MHz, 64 MB DDR2, 8 MB flash o Network 1 x 10/100/1000 Ethernet port, 5725 to 5850 MHz, 150+Mbs
Nobody breaks the rules with these things, for a whole bunch of reasons. I could list the reasons, but they're all good reasons, so I won't bother.
You just power them up, and set them up like you do any router today. o Set them up as an access point (e.g., to paint the pool), or, o Set them up as your computer network interface (I do both).
That's kind of the point of this thread, which is to let people know that this kind of power (many times what they have today for sure) is available to them, if they need it, at about the same price they paid for their existing stuff.
You just have to know what to buy - and where to buy it:
Actually, that's just marketing.
What's nice about these units is that they're really small, light, easy to install, nothing to connect (it just snaps together), etc.
And, of course, if those specs are right, you get up to a thousand times the power of your typical repeater you buy in the box store, for just about the same price (about $100).
Let me know if you have other questions. o The really powerful stuff on my shelf are the rockets, by the way.
Note: It's a pleasure to move forward, technically, instead of having to deal with explaining that a decibel is a decibel and that a radio is a radio, and that an antenna is an antenna, etc, since that's just a waste of everyone's time (as only those who can't contribute any adult value whatsoever always seem to be the ones who complain about that silly stuff).
Hi Johann Beretta,
Now you're back to your silly childish games, where people who play silly childish games do it because they can't add any adult technical value.
BTW, by design, my posts always mirror the implied intent of the poster o Where your implied intent is sinister
And dead wrong. (AFAIK)
For example, what do you think the EIRP is of this device Paul asked about?
I never mind facts, so if you actually have facts for that wild-assed guess of yours, you're welcome to 'ream me with facts' as I'm fond of saying.
I'm not a bullshitter Johann - so if you believe my facts are wrong, then just show where they are wrong, as it seems, from your own statements, that you may not even understand the basics of the business you 'say' you're in.
There is no way to violate the law if you use the equipment shown.
I repeat: As far as I know, there's no way to violate the law, according to what I've read on the Ubiquiti support site (we could dig it up if you wish to argue - but you have to supply more than just a wild guess on your part as your supporting facts for your sinister accusation).
Johann - are you just trying to play silly games here on Usenet? o Or do you have adult technical value to add to help everyone?
Your choice.
To my knowledge, the Ubiquiti support people say there is no way to violate the law if the unit is used with the equipment it was designed for.
If you are as technical as you 'say' you are, then you already know that the router software is set up "by country", where you are forced to pick the country upon initial setup, where, since the US has the most power anyway (as far as I can tell), you just pick the US if you're in the US.
Anyway, the main point of this entire thread is not for the trolls to have a grand time playing their incessant silly worthless games... but to edify the users here that; a. They can get ten to one hundred (or more) the power of what they have b. To either paint a far off area of the yard (like, oh, say, the pool) c. Or to use as a 'network interface' out your computer Ethernet port d. Where the setup is trivial (it's like setting up any router) e. And, most importantly, where the cost is about the same.
The purpose of this thread is to let people know this, and, to find out, from those adults who exist on this Usenet potluck, what success they've had doing so.
If you have an ADULT technical question, please feel free to ask.
Hi Dan Purgert,
Thanks for reminding us the rules are different for... o Point-to-MultiPoint [e.g., 2.4GHz is 36dBm (4watts)] o Point-to-Point [e.g., 2.4GHz could be as high as 158 dB] And... o Frequency (e.g., 5GHz has different rules per frequency band) Based on o Antenna gain (i.e., for Point-to-Point but not for multipoint) As described here:
But, it seems the US is always the best anyway... o Are they?
For example, for fixed Point-to-Point it's 1 watt (+30 dBm) minus 1 dB for each 3 dB of antenna gain greater than 6 dBi <FCC Part 15.247(b) and (c), and Part 15.407(a)>
So it's not just a single number. o But it's my understanding that the radio won't "let" you exceed limits (That understanding is literally from conversing with Ubiquiti support.)
BTW, I said I wouldn't respond to trolls in this thread, but your post "seemed" purposefully helpful, where I'm always glad to be reamed by facts (I _love_ facts - and - in fact - I live and breathe by sharing and up taking facts), so I decided to take the risk by responding to what seems like a purposefully helpful post of yours above, in your implied intent).
I just searched since we had covered the fact that routers are atrociously weak (they won't even tell you the power in most cases - you have to go back to the FCC documents in many cases).
The first hit is this one: o Power Levels and Amount of Radiation
This second hit looked more promising o How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
Where there was an interesting rule of thumb which can help people here figure out much power they need.
For example, it was stated in that thread: o 3 dB increases the range by 140% And, it was stated in that thread: o 6 dB doubles the range So if you needed double the range, something like o 10 dB will get you a reliable connection
Later on in that thread, these numbers came out for typical routers:
That thread said the classic WRT54G router is 28 mWatts (about 14 dBm)
Where this seemed to be a good rule of thumb for value calculation: a) Power gain = Power2/Power1 = 251/28 milliwatts = 9x power gain b) Range gain = sqrt(Power gain) = sqrt(9) = 3X range gain c) Range = original range * range gain = 100 feet * 3 = 300 feet total
If we add the 2 dBi that this post from a very reliable person claims the rubber ducky antenna gives us, we get about 14 dBm + 2 dBi = 16 dB for the classic WRT54G router.
I tried to find a listing on the net of the router specs, but they seem to try to hide some of the most important comparitive information, like dB.
Searching the Google archives, I find this thread about my radio: o How many decibels does this router radio REALLY output?
There they discuss my radio, which turns out to be, for Paul an... o Ubiquiti PowerBeam M2 400, which is only 26 decibels of transmit o into an 18dBi antenna, which is legal for point-to-multipoint
Again, I don't think the router software "can" exceed legal limits, according to what I've seen from Ubiquiti support personnel, but, maybe they can exceed limits - I don't know - I never needed them to since they're powerful enough to paint what I need painted.
While setting these powerful radios up is no more difficult than setting up your much weaker SOHO router at home, I will repeat that it's my understanding that you can't exceed the legal limits - based on what Ubiquiti personal have told me...
But if you can, then all I need are real facts, as I love facts, but I don't do well with guesses since anyone can guess about anything they want.
I still think, from past experience on the net, from somewhere, that a typical SOHO router is pretty damn weak - but I'll look up some to figure out what I can find by way of FCC documents, which usually are the best source for transmit power and antenna gain.
Hi Paul,
Thanks for that powerpoint, where I have no idea how to buy "unlicensed" equipment, nor do I care to even think about unlicensed stuff, since the Ubiquiti stuff kills typical SOHO routers anyway.
The SOHO routers, at about the same price, are a puny 20 dB as far as I can tell, whereas this Ubiquiti stuff, at the same price, is easily ten to a hundred times better gain.
BTW, not the 2 dB coax loss used in the calculation on page 11 (counting the cover page as page 1), where in the threads I previously mentioned, I think it was Jeff Liebermann who said just the pigtail alone is a half decibel loss, where the PowerBeam we're talking about, has no pigtail to deal with.
On page 12, it says the 2.4 GHz & 5GHz omni max EIRP is 36 dBm. Page 12 also says, for directional signals... o For every 3dB of antenna gain beyond 6dBi o Reduce the transmit power by 1dBm
Given we know the $90 PowerBeam M2 400 that Paul asked about o Starts with only 26 decibels of transmit power o into an 18dBi antenna...
That's line 5 exactly on Paul's chart on page 12: o Max Power of 26 dBm + 18 dBi = 44 dBm (i.e., 25 Watts)
Which tells us that radio Paul asked about is capable of the maximum o But no more (i.e., in this application, you can't be illegal) Which, I assume, is exactly what you'd want ... is it not?
Hi Paul, Thank you for finding the fact that, as I had thought, the software "turns down the transmit power" based on the antenna gain (and country regulations).
I think anyone who complains, at this stage, about "legal limits" is sort of like someone who quibbles about the spelling of decibels. If that's all they can offer - which is a warning to not exceed legal limits - then that's sort of like warning someone not to step in front of a speeding train ... it's not useful information since everyone already knows it.
What's useful is if we could figure out the EIRP of our typical $100 home routers, where I'm under the impression 20 decibels would be a good one, where the key point is that, for the same $90, we get the most powerful radio you can legally use in the US.
BTW, for $140 in toto, you can destroy your router's puny 2 dBi omni with
IMHO, at those prices, with that power in your hands, and especially given how small (physically) a bullet is (it fits in the palm of your hand), it's a wonder _anyone_ buys a horridly weak router at anything near that price.
On 10/16/19 12:37 AM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote: [ The usual shit deleted. ]
If you already know all the answers, why do you waste our time asking questions?
The main point is that the radio and antenna are as close together as a tire is to the wheel ... such that these are colloquially equivalent: o Aim the radio o Aim the antenna
Just as these are colloquially equivalent o Balance the wheel o Balance the tires
The problem I have with quibbling is that it gains us nothing, and, worse, the people who quiblle are always the ones who can't add value.
Think about it this way: o You're on a slippery tile roof, aiming the antenna, o And you call down below to the guy on the laptop with the software o "Did we get to 60 decibels yet" And ... the guy incessantly argues with you o That's it's dBi or dBm... or worse ... that it's minus
The time to quibble is when you're sitting in the classroom. o We're trying to get something done here
Already Johann Baretta mentioned he owns a WISP where he picks up signals from San Onofre Visitor Center WiFi from 60 miles away.
That's the kind of range that's possible with this stuff! (Well, not that much for $100 ... but you get the point).
The value here is that anyone on a computer with an Ethernet port can extend their range by huge amounts, for less than a hundred bucks.
Since this equipment isn't sold in the normal consumer stores, they just have to know that it exists, and what to get, where the PowerBeams are hard to beat in terms of price/performance but there are tons of choices depending on what the person wants to do:
a. Do they want to vastly extend the range of their WiFi b. Or do they paint the furthest reaches of their property c. Or do they wish to pick up or throw Internet vast distances
All this is possible - for around $100 - if you know how.
Lucifer,
When you're on a rooftop, "aiming an antenna", and you call down to the guy below connected via a laptop to the other end of the POE, asking... o "Did we get to 60 decibels yet"
Do you really think it's helpful if the helper starts quibbling o About the "type" of decibels, or o About the "minus" sign?
Only in the classroom, where the goals are different o Is the type of qubbling you did ... even remotely helpful
Your quibbling (and that of others) was of no value to the group. o It only made _you_ feel good that you found an inaccuracy
It's jsut as if you harangue the tire shops for advertising o "We balance tires" Or o "We balance wheels"
When you probably don't know the slightest thing about any of this stuff. o If you do, your quibbling doesn't prove it.
If you want to ADD VALUE, Lucifer, realize that Usenet is a pot luck. o Your value is what you ADD to the equation
Quibbling about everyone elses' food without bringing any of your own o Is what you did, Lucifer.
Why don't you try to ADD value to this thread, Lucifer? o Tell us how you increase the range of our desktops, for example; o Or, tell us how to throw (or receive) Internet from afar, Lucifer; o Or, tell us how to paint WIFi to the far corners of our property.
Tell us something useful.
Tell us something we don't already know, Lucifer. o Instead of childishly quibbling about colloquial terminology.
Your error was easy to find. You've applied the table for 5.8 GHz to
2.4 GHz.The 5.8 band is much more permissible and permits an EIRP of 53 dbm (30 dBm plus 23 dBi of antenna gain for example)
The 2.4 band is the more restrictive of the two and permits only 36 dbm with a caveat: You can increase the antenna gain to get an EIRP above 36 dBm but for every 3dBi increase of antenna gain you must reduce the transmit power by 1 dBm.
That's the problem. It's "AFAIK" and it's wrong.
If you look at the UI of the PowerBeam M5, you'll notice under the wireless tab you're given two options for the antenna.
When you select option 1, you can increase the output power to a maximum of 26 dbm.
When you select option 2, you can increase the output power to a maximum of ONLY 12 dbm.
Both options are legal as long as you select the TRUTHFUL option. It's perfectly legal to run a Powerbeam feedhorn in a standalone situation. However, why the f*ck anyone would ever do that is beyond me. Nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that it is legal (if odd) to do so.
It is absolutely illegal to LIE in the configuration and choose the Feed Only option when it's snapped into the dish.
<snip>As I have just shown you above, that's absolutely incorrect.
<snip>
On several occasions now I have pointed out your errors. Your previous antenna / radio design, if actually using the 2.4 band is patently illegal. If you require further information, you can find it here:
Then they have lied to your face. It's absurdly easy to use the equipment in an illegal manner. All it requires is that you lie in the configuration. They should have said "There's no way to violate the law if you're honest in the configuration section"
The Rocket line have a drop down selection that lists about a dozen antennas (13 to be exact). One of the requirements for being legal is being truthful about what antenna (or gain) you have attached the radio to.
Specifying a 10 dbi antenna will let you choose up to 27 dbm of output power. Specify the 36 dbi antenna and the slider will change to permit a maximum of 2 dbm of power.
Guess what happens if I lie and attach a 36 dbi antenna but tell the rocket I'm only using a 10dbi antenna? Yeah, the slider will allow me to choose up to 27 dbm of power and I'll have an EIRP of 63 dbi which is absolutely illegal.
There are also further restrictions on power depending on if you're doing PtP or PtMP, but we won't get into those here as I honestly don't feel like getting that deep into it.
Yeah. It's now a violation of FCC rules to use equipment, made for use overseas, inside the US. That came about this year if memory serves because so many goddamn WISPs were purchasing equipment destined for more permissible locations and then blasting RF all over the place.
I would not be surprised if we have a situation in the future where the FCC mandates that a Rocket M5 (for example) will have to verify what antenna it's attached to (via internal communication (RFID perhaps)) and will refuse to operate if it's attached to a non-compliant antenna.
It's far too easy to simply lie in the internals and be in full blown violation of FCC transmit rules. Right now we were on the f****ng honor system and, like all honor systems, it's failing.
<snip>You may want to reverse that. I suggest you start asking others your technical questions.
And, as a final note, if I did in fact misread your original design and you're using 5.8 then your design does appear to be fine. But if you're using the 2.4 band then you need to redo your calcs, man. Because the way you have them (if it's truly 2.4) you're encouraging people to violate FCC transmit regulations.
Are the Feds gonna show up? Probably not. Well, not unless someone complains and keeps complaining.. But they've (the FCC) have begun to be a tad bit more proactive when responding to WISP complaints.
By the way, if you pull any of that transmit power / antenna lying B.S. in the DFS bands and do interfere with radar, you can expect HUGE fines. They're not playing that game any more. Do a google search on WISP and Puerto Rico.
Those knuckleheads loaded foreign firmware (DD-WRT if memory serves) onto their radios and then bypassed the DFS detection routines. The FCC proceed to ass f*ck them financially. Personally I think they should have done a couple of months in prison. They actually interfered with airport radar.. The $25K fine was far too lenient (IMHO).
I know. I've been using USENET since 1996 or so.. Maybe 1997.. My memory gets a bit foggy going back that far.
I've also been using computers since 1979. I'm not a newbie.
On 10/15/19 11:19 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote: <snip>
<snip>Not a big deal when speaking to lay persons. More of a deal when speaking to other "experts".
Once again, would you trust a doctor who pointed at your head and kept saying you had a fractured tibia?
They're both bones.. Who gives a f*ck, right?
Hi Dan Purgert,
THANK YOU for that correction! Mea culpa!
Also, THANK YOU FOR ADDING ADULT VALUE to this thread!
I respond to all purposefully helpful posts, where I _appreciate_ that you found my statement above to be materially wrong (where, if I am accidentally wrong, I admit it as soon as it's pointed out, if not sooner).
It's a characteristic of an adult.
As you may recall, I state that I aim for 100% credibility on material facts, even after decades on Usenet, where you must admit to attain anywhere near that kind of credibility on Usenet for material facts puts me on the level of people like Marek Novotny, rest his soul.
I strive for 100% credibility because I own adult belief systems: a. I base my initial belief system on assessment of facts, and, b. If (and when) assessment of facts change, I modify my belief system Such that my belief system is _always_ based & bolstered, by facts.
You may find that I harp on the trolls, where there are resaons for that o The trolls infest any potluck picnic like gnats swarming around food o The trolls have no intention to add value - they troll for amusement o Hence, once the trolls infest a Q&A thread - the potluck is ruined
I try to swat the trolls ... to make it "less fun" for them to troll o But, as William Unruh astutely noted ... that also adds to the noise Where the hope is that the trolls find some other potluck to infest (Where, the record shows, I don't feed them when they infest other threads)
Trolls like nospam apparently base their belief system on the results of a coin toss (as far as anyone can tell), since they always fail this simple test of their claims, when it comes to asking them for underlying facts: o Name just one
I'm completely different from most Usenet posters (IMHO), Dan, o For one, I avoid idle worthless useless chitchat threads o For the other, I author threads that literally pry fact out (if possible)
To that end, Dan, in terms of valuable adult facts... o You can _always_ ream me with facts - and I will THANK YOU when you do.
Here's a reference, for example, on the Apple newsgroups, about facts: o wrong, by badgolferman > Has anyone here ever admitted they were wrong publicly in the > newsgroup even when proven so? How can everyone always be right? > Maybe some consider it a sign of weakness if they concede a point, > but it's actually a sign of humility and maturity. Notice that "adults" have no problem adjusting their belief systems:
When confronted with mere facts, in general, they respond with hatred. o Why? I don't know why.
I think perhaps it that their belief systems aren't based on facts o Facts scare them (like facts about Santa Claus might scare a child) o Facts instantly DESTROY their belief systems.
This is, IMHO, far more common on Apple newsgroups simply because Apple MARKETING is so far and above Linux & Windows marketing that the difference in the user base (IMHO), is night and day - but we leave that for a separate discussion on what type of people are more swayed by (admittedly clever) Marketing, whereas I suspect the Linux folks are least affected: o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
For me, facts _bolster_ my belief system o More correctly, an adult logical assessment of those facts does
The people whose belief systems aren't based on actual facts o But more so on (admittedly brilliant) marketing Are the ones who, IMHO, are the ones most spouting their bullshit on Usenet (e.g., people like "Snit", and "nospam", and "Chris", and "Lewis", etc.)
But even the Windows newsgroups has these types of people whose belief systems are (apparently) backed up by exactly zero facts, where, they too fail the most obvious of the simplest test of imaginary belief systems: o Name just one
BTW, as a glaringly example of those who prove they can't possibly ever add even one iota of adult value, you may note that Char Jackson just moments ago made some of the most ridiculous claims humanly possible in this post
Hence, I repeat I will ignore the aforementioned trolls in this thread.
Getting back to your on-topic calculations, I will agree that my quick assessment of Paul's data in that sentence of the maximum for point to point must be wrong - where I don't do "point to point" fixed setup design all that often (actually, almost never).
What I do mostly is point to multipoint o For example, I paint the pool or barn or distant driveway gate o Or, I vastly increase the range of a standalone laptop or desktop
Where, all I need to do those tasks, reliably, & legally, are facts.
Hence, what I love is that you reamed me with facts. o You can _always_ ream me with facts - as I love facts.
My belief system is based on facts! o The one fact I'd love to know more about is the typical router power
If we compare these $100 "tranceivers" such as the ones Paul and I refer to as the simple-to-use "Ubiquiti PowerBeam" transceivers ... they clearly can transmit at least up to the legal limit in EIRP (isn't that correct, Dan?)
Luckily the math is easier for these PowerBeam radios since they're essentially a one-part unit, where the radio, physically, is literally the "horn" of the antenna itself, as they snap together into place such that there is no "pigtail" accessible to the user; there is only Ethernet.
So while there _will_ be losses we didn't account for, they should be as minimal as Ubiquiti could have made them for these units, don't you think?
Given the PowerBeams are cheap, light, small, and, most to the point, still vastly more powerful than a typical similarly priced SOHO router, I'm glad Paul picked up on this PowerBeam, as I would like to start by making it the canonical suggestion for people on this newsgroup to start with, who want to increase their range.
I based that mostly on the fact that the price (about $100 give or take) for the entire unit is "about what they pay" for a typical SOHO router, and, more importantly, because the installation is about as simple as it gets (i.e., I assess setup to be about the same as for a typical router).
Just like a router, you sit it on a shelf (or bolt it to a pole), and you plug in the cat5 cable to your computer - and you log in (ubnt/ubnt) to
192.168.1.20 (as I recall), and you set it up:Voila! o You just vastly increased your Wi-Fi range for your laptop/desktop/phone! a. You either plug it into your laptop to get from the pool to the house b. Or you paint the pool from the house so your laptop/phone works far away All with the same router setup ease as what you have with a common router.
Either way (access point for your computer or network card for your computer), for about what people here pay for their puny routers, they get actual power (up to the legal power limit for your country).
BTW, let me ask you, Dan (or others), what's a "good name" to refer to what I said above was a "network card"?
Here's what you're doing at the pool: o You have the PowerBeam plugged into your laptop Ethernet port. o That gives you the maximum point-to-multipoint power available o For about the same price you pay today for a typical SOHO router
What would you 'call' that setup in a colloquial conversation? (Pretty much, that's what most of the people were arguing about.)
Just like we say "aiming an antenna" or "balancing tires", everyone knows what we're talking about, what would you call this setup in a colloquial conversation (i.e., you only get a couple of words to play with)?
As per FCC 15.247("Operation within the bands 909-928 MHz,
This is nice to know about fixed point-to-point operation, where our WISP who works with us need to know and deal with all of that.
While people on this ng 'can' set up a fixed point-to-point arrangement, wouldn't you say, Dan, that the most common obvious usage of this technology, for these computer newsgroups, would be point to multipoint, where, as shown above, they can plop their laptop at the pool, which can be hundreds of feet from the house, and still get good signal strength.
This is very nice to know, Dan, as we "set up" point-to-point radios for our WISP provider all the time - but where we simply use the settings they give us to use. We also maintain the radios (e.g., we update the firmware, and tweak settings, as per the WISP team; but we don't design the setup itself anymore (we did in the past, but, as you can tell from all the spare radios in the grandkids' playroom, we screwed up a lot before we finally ended up with what we're using now on our rooftops.
For this group, I think we should mostly speak about point to multipoint, since I can easily see everyone here possibly having a need to either extend the range of the access points surrounding the house or to extend the range of a single piece of computer equipment such as an Ethernet enabled laptop or desktop.
Thank you Dan, for pointing out a statement I made that I based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules that Paul kindly provided.
I'm always eager to be reamed with actual facts that are materially important.
Adults form belief systems which should be based on facts. o All my belief systems, are therefore, bolstered by facts.
Thank you Dan for pointing that out, which, in the aforementioned reference threads, I saw that Jeff Liebermann also pointed out.
In the case of the Powerbeams though, Dan, it seemed, at first, like it's impossible to exceed the legal limits, since the transceiver is literally part of the antenna (there is no pigtail, for example, accessible to the user).
However, in another post, Johann Beretta found an error in my assessment of the facts, which I agree with, where he provided accurate information which explained the following "can" happen if you wish to "lie" during the setup (where I didn't consider such a bold-faced lie to even be possible).
For the device that Paul mentioned, which is described in this spec sheet:
The router "wireless" setup tab shows two options for the antenna: a. Feed Only (2x2) 3 dBi b. 400 (2x2) 25 dBi
When you select the first option, you can separately set the transmit power to the maximum of 26 dBm, where you can't exceed the legal limits by doing so.
When you set the second option, which is just the feedhorn itself (which, interestingly, will work just fine - but who would bother?) you can increase the transmit power setting only to 12 dBM.
As Johann Beretta noted: > Both options are legal as long as you select the TRUTHFUL option. > It's perfectly legal to run a Powerbeam feedhorn in a standalone situation. > However, why the f*ck anyone would ever do that is beyond me. > Nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that it is legal (if odd) > to do so. However, where you can get into trouble is when Johann noted: > It is absolutely illegal to LIE in the configuration and choose the Feed
So, I stand corrected on my assessment that you can't set up the PowerBeam to an illegal power settings - simply because it didn't occur to me that people could/would lie on the router setup options.
So when people ask "are you buying licensed or unlicensed equipment", I'm kind of wondering "why" they ask that, where, to me, it's sort of like them asking "are you robbing banks" every time you purchase a ski mask.
Sure, you can purchase a ski mask and use it to rob banks, but, let's be adults in this thread with purposefully helpful intent and let's stop wasting our time accusing people of attempting to exceed legal limits.
What Dan Purgert & Johann Beretta proved with facts is that you "could" lie in the router setup, which will enable you to exceed limits - but there's no reason to do so (as far as I can tell), nor is there any desire to do so. (Hence, wasting our time with accusations of robbing banks is something people like "Good Guy" & "Diesel" & most of the apologists do - but adults can generally add on topic value without playing their silly games).
However, this useful corrective discussion points out something useful to share with the groups on this Usenet potluck - which is that this PowerBeam is, perhaps, one of the best suggestions for people on this newsgroup who want to try their hand at increasing their range, for about the same cost they paying today for what I consider to be anemic box store consumer stuff.
Hence...
For the remainder of _this_ discussion, I think we should concentrate on those PowerBeams that Paul happened to astutely pick out of the bunch!
The Bullets are even smaller in and of themselves (also at about $100)
Hmmm... Dan ... I'm ok with deferring to your knowledge, I really am. But that means I must have read Paul's page 12 wrong then.
Can you help clarify why my take on this one line in Paul's reference, is different from yours with respect to this exact situation: o PowerBeam M2 400, max 26dBm, antenna 18dBi
Paul's page 12 is titled "Maximum EIRP in 2.4 GHz", where the chart is for "directional signals", and where line 5 of that chart (in dark blue) shows: o Max Power = 26 dBm, Max Antenna Gain is 18dBi, EIRP is 44 dBm (25 Watts)
The PowerBeam M2 400 on my shelf fits that line perfectly. o Is it that this chart is NOT showing what the legal limits are?
Another point where we seem to differ, although not by a lot, is what the commonly available EIRP is of most home routers that are in this same $100 price range.
My research shows, for example, that the venerable (yet old) WRT54G is a puny 14dBm or 15 dBm (as I recall from a prior post) plus about 2dBi or
3dBi from the omni antennas, which provides paltry range compared to, oh, say, a 600mW bullet and 8 dBi omni attached, which is actually the same size (or even smaller) than the WRT54G would be (although they're different "things" since one has a switch attached while the other does only DHCP over the one RJ45).Note, for about the same price, the difference in range is huge, which, after all, is what we're talking about extending in this thread.
By the way, since this thread is all about adding value as our contribution to share with this Usenet potluck, I thank those below for their answers:
Johann Beretta snipped-for-privacy@nun-ya-bizness.com o Johann Beretta can 'see' visitor center access points 60 miles away
pjp snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com o pjp connects to his Internet over WiFi about 1 kilometer away LOS
Gary snipped-for-privacy@att.net o Gary connects to a neighborhood WiFi about 1/2 block away
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com o He experienced a dozen home in a valley connected to a single DSL o
Gavin snipped-for-privacy@kalifornia.guv o Gavin uses only Ethernet
Frank snipped-for-privacy@frank.net o Frank uses Ethernet because the speed is 3X for him
Terry Coombs <snag snipped-for-privacy@msn.com o Desktop isn't WiFi; but other computers are "right next" to the DSL modem
Cindy Hamilton snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com o Her desktop has no wifi while her WiFi router feeds the house fine
Frank Slootweg snipped-for-privacy@ddress.is.invalid>
o "about 2 metre but sometimes as little as about 5 cm"
Rene Lamontagne snipped-for-privacy@shaw.ca o "exactly 51 inches"
Note: This thread is perfect for two types of people above: a. Those whose desktops do NOT have WiFi (they only need an RJ45 port) b. Anyone who needs far greater WiFi range than what they already have
Since, in this Usenet potluck, we bring our suggestions to share so that a. Those whose desktops do NOT have WiFi (they only need an RJ45 port) b. Anyone who needs far greater WiFi range than what they already have
I agree with both Paul & J.P. Gilliver (John) that: o It's likely more bang for the buck to put a dollar into the antenna dB o Than to put that same dollar into the radio transmit dB Although complexities arise when you get to sensitivity & noise immunity.
What would be nice, by way of shared comparisons, if people would note what the power output is of the current Wi-Fi enabled SOHO router they're using.
As far as I can tell, so far anyway, typical consumer router EIRPs are orders of magnitude lower than the PowerBeam we've latched onto as our suggested unit to increase WiFi range for Ethernet-enabled computers.
Can others share what EIRP we can typically attain with $100 home routers?
<OT>
Like you, and like most here, I'm no noob to Usenet either.
I started with, oh, I guess Masscomp or SunOS, maybe VAXVMS, where we used 'rn' and 'tin', where, even today, I use "vi" & telnet as my "client".
The point to keep in mind is that trolls have always existed o Trolls always prove one thing each time they post
All I have to do is point to what they trolls themselves wrote to prove it o The trolls swarm like gnats at any Usenet potluck to ruin it if they can
Who are the trolls who posted _zero_ value in this thread? o Fox's Mercantile snipped-for-privacy@att.net (more than a half dozen times) o trader_4 snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net (more than 14 posts in this thread) o dpb snipped-for-privacy@none.net (two utterly worthless posts in this thread) o Ed Pawlowski snipped-for-privacy@snet.xxx (two completely off topic worthless posts)
An example of pointing to what these trolls post, look at this: o From: % snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com "i thought he looked like a fake tit"
Clearly these people did not bring adult value to the Usenet potluck o Hence, the question, always, is "can" they (is it actually "in" them?)
Think about these facts when we realize how trolls ruin Usenet o People like Fox's Mercantile can't post a _single_ item of on-topic value o Even after having posted more than a half dozen times (all worthless)
Even as I haven't responded once to trolls from Fox's Mercantile or djb o Yet, like cowardly bullies, they insist on their god-given right to troll
What is an adult supposed to do about this infestation of trolls? o There is always the option to not feed them (which I clearly tried here) o Yet, that doesn't stop them (Fox's Mercantile _still_ repeatedly trolled)
Over the years, I've realized, all these trolls _can_ do .... is troll. o They have no adult value to add whatsoever; to any technical topic.
There are, as I see it, two fundamental use models on Usenet: a. The model I use, which is FAQ style - ask a question & work the answer b. There's the model the trolls use - post nothing of value - for amusement
Since the trolls like Fox's Mercantile & Ed Pawloski & djb are here for amusement, there's really nothing an adult can do - since they trolled this thread, multiple times, even though they were completely ignored.
Nothing can stop the gnats from infesting the Usenet potluck. o I tried to swat them away (e.g., trader_4); but they keep coming.
There are only two kinds of people who posted to this thread: o Those who posted technical value with purposefully helpful intent o And those trolls who prove, by what they post, this is amusement for them
We're having a serious technical conversation, Johann Beretta o And the trolls are consistently posting their child-like drivel.
The problem, with Usenet, as I see it... o Is that the trolls insist on proving they have a God-given right to troll
The good part about Usenet, as I see it... o Is that adults can still share nuggets of useful on-topic tech advice
I appreciate that YOU clearly have adult on-topic technical value to add o As do others like Jeff Liebermann who contributes greatly to Usenet
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.