> I'm happy when I can download
> 1Gb in approx an hr. Typical 1/2 hr tv rip takes 20 minutes or so for
> 400Kb.

Thanks for your perspective, which, as I noted, most people on cable
wouldn't have the knowledge of, if this conversation weren't public.

Like you, I'm happy with what I can get, over the air, for my WiFi
connection to the Internet - where - I just ran a speedtest (see below),
mine are as follows at the moment (but it changes greatly over time of
course, depending on the weather, the time of day, etc.):
<https://i.postimg.cc/bNMMZ0Nv/wifi-speed.jpg>

That's about 24/14, which is kind of typical for me, where it can drop to
one tenth that, but rarely get more than double about that speed (which is
pretty pathetic if we compare to typical cable speeds - as the transmission
of the signal over miles takes its toll on lost & jumbled packets).

> I sometimes see as much as 1.3MB/Sec doing occassional torrrent
> download. Way faster than basic package even though price went up 50%,
> speed increase was tenfold so ...

Thank you for that perspective on torrenting, where, when I torrent, I
generally add a VPN to the mix (although truth be told, I'm almost always
on VPN anyway, as a matter of habit), where the VPN takes its toll in speed
penalties.

I don't torrent all that often though, where mostly I watch videos on the
Android phone (or, with emulation, on Windows, where it runs even faster
than on Android due to the memory and CPU advantages of a desktop).

The beauty of watching videos on Android is that, for free (I only use
freeware), we NEVER need a Google Play account (even to subscribe to video
channels on YouTube), and better yet, we never see an inserted
advertisement on YouTube, and we can download any YouTube video, bar none,
at any quality level available, and, better yet, we can strip out the video
so as to listen to the audio (which is what I do most), all offline, so
that we don't have to worry about our bandwidth coming in fits and starts
over the kilometers between our devices and our Internet connection.

The functionality on Android for such things literally wipes iOS off the
face of the earth, where I'll leave it at that, and with this reference:
<https://newpipe.schabi.org/>

Given we have slow speeds since our ISP is over the air, it would be nice
if this type of freeware existed on the common consumer desktops!
o Have you been able to get NewPipe freeware running yet on Windows?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/rfyVKidB8X8/slOeDAEQAQAJ>

In fact, my cellphone battery was dead where I had to watch a YouTube video
on the iOS-based iPad, where it was appalling that iOs users have to see
ads in YouTube (even though I use "Music Tube" and "Video Tube", which are
'supposed' to suppress the Google ads, which, they do - but they insert
their own, which accomplishes nothing useful overall).
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/video-tube-stream-play-watch/id566564331>
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mytube-stream-and-play/id964383263>

As noted, the beauty of Android functionality kills that of iOS, even on
the desktop, where the Android apps run _better_ on the desktop than they
do on Android itself (due to the hardware, of course). (The Mac can't hope
to catch up, as the recent admission by Apple yesterday that Netflix iOS
app will never be on the Mac shows strategically, for the most popular
apps.)

My point is that video speeds ARE a problem for me, as they are for you,
where we just have to be clever about intelligently choosing free apps
which easily download the videos (or strip the audio) without any added
bandwidth of advertisements.

> Almost all my house is hard wired using one router and three switches.

Thank you for that additional information about routers and switches,
where, if I snapped a photo of my setup, you'd likely be appalled at the
number of routers and switches entangled in the rats nest.

Basically, when I replace a router, I set up the old router as either a
wired repeater or as a wireless repeater, where, interestingly, again, the
stellar difference between iOS and Android shows up in spades, when you
watch them switch between what are the same access point SSIDs, but
obviously quite different BSSIDs.

As you are likely aware, one of the greatest things about having to figure
out how to get our Internet and cellular in a rural area, is that we learn
how to diagnose and debug signal strength, noise levels, and bandwidth
issues.

The utilities available on Android, for example, kill those available on
the desktops, unfortunately ... such as what I have on my Android phone
that I wish were all ported to the desktops (although some are):
<https://i.postimg.cc/BZrZpDyp/debug-apps.jpg>

Even with free Android emulation on the desktops, the cellphone is better.
o Genymotion tutorial I wrote to help others do what I did on a desktop
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/ix9empN-mxg/07ZmH2AWAQAJ>

o Bluestacks tutorial I wrote to help others do what I did on a desktop
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/JBRjZ39w4Ok/6Vzu7rtIAQAJ>

o Andyroid tutorial I wrote to help others do what I did on a desktop
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/FkZu5vAswYo/wISRtpUUAQAJ>
etc.

It's just sad that this functionality is almost always either non existent,
or far less powerful, or not free, etc., on the Apple platform... sigh.
o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/IK0TZ3LxGgQ/kwhrUnzoBAAJ>

> Wi-Fi seldom used but works thruout house as some of my pcs have built
> in wireless and not just the laptops. Only pc depends on wireless is
> older Netbook wife uses to display sheet music on piano.

Thank you for that information that you use older desktops, as do I, where
most of mine don't have WiFi built in, but where I just plug a spare
antenna into the Ethernet RJ45 port, and voila - they can pick up signal at
-55 decibels (which is pretty good signal) that is literally coming from 10
kilometers (about 6 miles) away, over the air, line of sight.

Like you, I don't want to depend on wireless (or the cloud); so what I do
for all my devices (iOS, Android, Windows, and Linux anyway), is use them
as USB sticks, which is easy to do for all but iOS but which is also easy
to do on iOS if you know how (which takes a bit of thinking first - but
once you know the trick - any iOS device is turned into a free USB stick in
seconds over USB cable).

Luckily, most of us own all the platforms, so we can switch between them as
we see fit, where a dual boot Linux and Windows, for example, allows us to
use the iOS device as a USB stick, to simultaneously transfer large video
files to and from any device to and from any other device, over USB.
o Simultaneously slide Windows Linux iOS Android files back and forth over USB at 7GB per minute speeds using 100% native devices (no proprietary software needed)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/WqIDiVbawRs/pwxzu7LMCAAJ>

Note that almost nobody knows how to do that simple task from the desktop,
for iOS devices, because it requires knowledge of a trick to WRITE to the
entire visible file system of the iOS device - which isn't in the least
intuitive - but which works great once you know that trick (where even the
ad hoc system files on the iOS device are visible to the desktop user that
knows the simple tricks).

In summary, because we have such slow Internet connections, we have to keep
"stuff" off the Internet, where we learn how to be self sufficient
connecting to WiFi access points which are miles away over line of sight,
and working around the need for wifi by using wires inside the house
whenever possible (e.g., USB works great for large video file transfers and
for backups of entire mobile devices to and from networked storage devices,
all without adding anything to the desktop or mobile device by way of
special software).

You just have to know the tricks, such as some of these:
o Do you have a working cross-platform PASSWD database for Windows, Linux, Mac, iOS, & Android on your home LAN?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/YEfw5NblnRs/kvn3DUiAEAAJ>

o Can we come up with a free, ad free, cloud-free calendaring system that works with Windows and Linux and mobile devices?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/ydQ9sG-8Y08/pBRXk7UEEgAJ>

In summary, if you know the technical tricks, people like us, on very slow
Internet connections, find that there's almost never a need to use the
"cloud" to store our private data (e.g., calendar, photos, backups,
passwords, etc.) and we find tricks for viewing movies without ads and we
find ways to watch movies for free offline without the inevitable hiccups
of fits and starts that would happen over our slow connections were we to
attempt streaming over the air.

Thanks for all your information where it's nice to know what others do when
they are forced to figure out ways to make use of Wi-Fi access points miles
away from their desktops.

Char Jackson

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 5:19:28 PM10/9/19

to

I'd love to hear more about this claim from the OP:

"An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop."

I assume that plugging an antenna into an RJ45 Ethernet port is similar to
plugging a paper rose or a plastic drinking straw into that Ethernet port.
;-)

Dan Purgert

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 5:40:17 PM10/9/19

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Char Jackson wrote:
> [...]

>>On 2019-10-09 12:52 a.m., Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
>>> The access point my desktop connects to is about a half dozen miles away.

>>> [...]

>>> An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop.
>>> The signal strength, even at more than a half-dozen miles, is about -55dBM.
>

> I'd love to hear more about this claim from the OP:
> "An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop."

Arlen is, as usual, using the wrong words, probably so "stupids like
you(tm)" can understand his >9000IQ.

As I recall, he uses a Ubiquiti Rocket M2 as a CPE device to connect to
his ISP. I can't recall if you've used them before, so forgive me if
you know this already. One "side" of the device is a long range 2.4 GHz
radio, the other is a standard copper ethernet port.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl2eU7kACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFShAf+Jw4k/np9coRrQporhGZCjY5+wHaDGvKQyyqpdIwRWTo3wpT9Pt7B6Bhl
L/rmXcRCACkkvF4ZFIvKNR1MK5ymRtgChp0zl91laZD+7/GRnPJBQqAqcj9JW9Jo
RrZCWemDDQBOqPvMizbsxG3ONarSK6ifRVDfS6uZYjDgMkNvqLvYODIsUz6weLOP
QNrUyHxS139ry48haiN8Qkblb0MCUMbdUaS1rTgYYjzJx7vl4GDI3HaV+ml+9XnR
MbOPMUh5Rb9z1tzWmTYJF1yuo5xPlThhN3sYmigprqKDsyWQrXjIXquPC4x0I9fB
dJf3kBwdZr6G5dl0KksxbbfSQRVlZw==
=BFMe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

Ken Hart

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 5:59:11 PM10/9/19

to

On 10/9/19 5:19 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 10:43:13 -0500, Rene Lamontagne <rla...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2019-10-09 12:52 a.m., Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
>>> Just curious how far your Wi-Fi access point is from your desktop computer.
>>> <https://i.postimg.cc/VvqLKQtQ/wifi.jpg>
>>>
>>> The access point my desktop connects to is about a half dozen miles away.
>>> An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop.
>>> The signal strength, even at more than a half-dozen miles, is about -55dBM.
>>>
>>> Just curious how far your nearest WiFi access point is from your desktop?
>>>
>>
>> exactly 51 inches.
>
> I'd love to hear more about this claim from the OP:
> "An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop."

I am curious about that also. I did a search on Amazon for "wifi dongle
plug into ethernet port"; I got a lot of wifi dongles that plug into a
USB port, but I didn't see any that plug into an RJ-45. There were also
devices to convert ethernet to USB (or vice versa), so I suppose it
could be done with two pieces of gear.

>
> I assume that plugging an antenna into an RJ45 Ethernet port is similar to
> plugging a paper rose or a plastic drinking straw into that Ethernet port.
> ;-)

I saw a youtube video on how to increase your ethernet speed by 2-4
times. It involved wrapping the ethernet cable around a toilet paper
tube several times, then covering it with foil. While a toilet paper
tube can be used as a coil form for some purposes where an inductance is
needed, twisted pair cables used in ethernet would usually defeat that
inductance. I suspect that the fact the video was published on April 1st
has something to do with it's veracity.

I've never tried the paper rose or plastic drinking straw plugged into
the RJ-45. If you got eight paper roses with wire stems could you crimp
a connector on them and really get some smoking fast ethernet?
>
>

--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

Dan Purgert

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 6:06:30 PM10/9/19

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.comp.os.windows-10.]

Ken Hart wrote:
> On 10/9/19 5:19 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>>
>> I assume that plugging an antenna into an RJ45 Ethernet port is similar to
>> plugging a paper rose or a plastic drinking straw into that Ethernet port.
>> ;-)

> [...]

> I've never tried the paper rose or plastic drinking straw plugged into
> the RJ-45. If you got eight paper roses with wire stems could you crimp
> a connector on them and really get some smoking fast ethernet?

Well, something might end up smoking. Not sure it'll be your transfer
speeds though. :)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl2eWeQACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFbGAf8CAFffRZWXYT7YASq/wNW+/5Hx5Rhyc2lj4LcsaAHdZnA59Bn4wOKp7aB
2Poeu7yj+XV44wM4ug4lMzJRlChlIQnoo+IdFgBYU8e8Izz5O2hhohfRxRfk1TF/
RhiinrXZQDt8lQiGM0lDuRMb6l+2rkF5yGAnFzWVqofSULzo8iWl5zjCE/tVw913
0XHVjbqgrT4qegoqvVZro0Ux6LlTwJ4rJIgBMo/jrYgDuT3OWiNSF8yAB2swDzXS
ZN8QnC2rMowd1X8nSasRk9mf8HgZdkA5oQfDS5+2Bsdl7skW+MPma2hMtpzN2Sog
8ULkDUTIizbHL3SskTk2sAJOIRBsrw==
=hfSR

Ken Hart

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 6:28:06 PM10/9/19

to

On 10/9/19 5:40 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Char Jackson wrote:
>> [...]
>>> On 2019-10-09 12:52 a.m., Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
>>>> The access point my desktop connects to is about a half dozen miles away.
>>>> [...]
>>>> An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop.
>>>> The signal strength, even at more than a half-dozen miles, is about -55dBM.
>>
>> I'd love to hear more about this claim from the OP:
>> "An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop."
>
> Arlen is, as usual, using the wrong words, probably so "stupids like
> you(tm)" can understand his >9000IQ.

And yet, he managed to confuse "stupids like (me)" tm.

>
> As I recall, he uses a Ubiquiti Rocket M2 as a CPE device to connect to
> his ISP. I can't recall if you've used them before, so forgive me if
> you know this already. One "side" of the device is a long range 2.4 GHz
> radio, the other is a standard copper ethernet port.

Now, that makes sense. So he plugs a small radio transceiver into the
RJ-45, not an antenna.

--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

Dan Purgert

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 6:46:57 PM10/9/19

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Ken Hart wrote:
> On 10/9/19 5:40 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> Char Jackson wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> On 2019-10-09 12:52 a.m., Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
>>>>> The access point my desktop connects to is about a half dozen miles away.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop.
>>>>> The signal strength, even at more than a half-dozen miles, is about -55dBM.
>>>
>>> I'd love to hear more about this claim from the OP:
>>> "An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop."
>>
>> Arlen is, as usual, using the wrong words, probably so "stupids like
>> you(tm)" can understand his >9000IQ.
>
> And yet, he managed to confuse "stupids like (me)" tm.

Yeah, that might not have been the best wording. Can never remember who
all is on his list of people who aim only to derail conversations. I
don't think anyone's actually stupid in here. Well, maybe me when I get
baited by others...

I'm sure he'll be along presently to spout off how I add nothing to
discussions. :)

>
>>
>> As I recall, he uses a Ubiquiti Rocket M2 as a CPE device to connect to
>> his ISP. I can't recall if you've used them before, so forgive me if
>> you know this already. One "side" of the device is a long range 2.4 GHz
>> radio, the other is a standard copper ethernet port.
>
> Now, that makes sense. So he plugs a small radio transceiver into the
> RJ-45, not an antenna.

Yeah, well, if you consider (approx) 8" x 4" x 2" with a 2 foot diameter
antenna to be "small" :).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl2eY1oACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFBqQgAoOi9N9WNpbaAZmwtjXXsfbxaJ2H7Xwj9pD45H1nS0Vg7z6TEpdLPPD8q
eGh6yUJzlGVxqq6d4CfG+5z6sOC/0TUTQ3oCZsbq5kikhs7m7RiOCXWP454EZ1JY
bMlpDlBF3RXwaXj+B2nzcoxaEfolyiaQ0LjqaLlZxHchLkH313cga+Az0BEhkU7r
nRwAN85eh4ue3v17pNWgqHtjTjPqg93LE7Gn2EU0fCSXjOWGtNbXuk9YxlaDAsyb
eGMZM3P3F+3EWjguA42gzMJbxc2ZNr74ePl1r4Kh+EpvwuIIWnqp1SupVapDYAEu
7PoOf5uIq2uB8cP+2tym/2lb49IyMA==
=KIQ+

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 6:50:07 PM10/9/19

to

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 17:59:09 -0400, Ken Hart wrote:

>> I'd love to hear more about this claim from the OP:
>> "An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop."
>
> I am curious about that also. I did a search on Amazon for "wifi dongle
> plug into ethernet port"; I got a lot of wifi dongles that plug into a
> USB port, but I didn't see any that plug into an RJ-45. There were also
> devices to convert ethernet to USB (or vice versa), so I suppose it
> could be done with two pieces of gear.

Hi Ken Hart,

You bring up very good points, as did some of the others who aren't aware
of the fact that one end of the setup is a "normal" Ethernet Cat6 RJ45
typical connection which plugs into anything that normally takes the RJ45
connector (e.g., a desktop, a laptop, a router, another radio, etc.).

Regarding terminology, as Dan Purgert noted, when we say 'antenna', we
generally mean the entire apparatus, which includes a radio, otherwise
known as a "transceiver", which, for those who don't know, equates roughly
to the "modem" for you cable cognizant folks (as it effectively does the
same thing from the standpoint of what's on each end):
<http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_wifi.jpg>

It's typical in the WISP arena to just say "antenna" or "radio" instead of
"transceiver", where it's simply assumed the reader understands the basics.

As Dan Purgert said, one end of the 'device', is a female RJ45, which, of
course, plugs into anything you want to plug it into.

The other end of the 'device' is the "antenna", which connects to another
"antenna" which, in the case of pjp, is a kilometer away, and which, in my
case, is about 10 kilometers away, where that's only the start of the
distances we can cover and still get decent signal strength.

Here's an example of me explaining to Rod Speed, for example, how he can
connect his neighbor's house to his house, using a "similar" setup:
o For Rod Speed: Example of Wi-Fi connection between two homes 5.4 km apart (3.4 miles)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/NJw9ncPPkUA/mMHmRm5sCQAJ>

I helped Rod Speed by advising him on a variety of ways he can connect two
widely separate homes to the same Internet connection (line of sight).
o Rod Speed: How is your neighbor's WiFi from your house going?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/FcthxOalXr0/Pr7TdtQHCgAJ>

I'm always learning how to do things - which - a lot of people - don't do.

For just one example, out here, in the mountains surrounding the Silicon
Valley, we're mostly self sufficient, where, we even repair, mount and
balance our own car tires ... so setting this stuff up just comes naturally
to us (we're American, after all - which means we fix stuff).

But when you "fix stuff", you have to "learn stuff".
o In fact, you have to "learn stuff" that many people never learn.

For example, on car tires, as just one of many examples,
o Just mounted & static balanced my 30th tire in about five years
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.home.repair/zfyOpil5bck/4axuVoT6BwAJ>
o Clare - are smaller car tires easier to balance than SUV tires?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.home.repair/So4om4fLtmI/6JMGVoT1BQAJ>
o Two simple questions that came up when mounting tires at home
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.home.repair/uYN-T90pKUw/oTAGMHKGAAAJ>
o Clare, Xeno.... did you ever have a batch of tires that just wouldn't seal after the final bead?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.home.repair/ST-xNgC5pnU/agDaRH_JAgAJ>
etc.

In the case of obtaining your Internet service from ten kilometers away, we
have to learn how to set up the radios to talk to each other, and then, the
part about talking to the desktop is trivial - since it's a "normal"
Ethernet connection between the radio and the desktop.

You just plug one end of the "antenna" into the RJ45 port of the desktop.

As for "terminology", we generally just use the simplifications of...
Radio:
<https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-ROCKETM5-Power-airMAX-BaseStation/dp/B00HXT8P9O>
Antenna:
<https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-RocketDish-RD-5G34-Antenna-RD-5G-34/dp/B00HXT8OMM>

Where the "official" brand names,.on Amazon anyway, are the following:
o Ubiquiti ROCKETM5 5GHz Hi Power 2x2 MIMO TDMA airMAX BaseStation
o Ubiquiti RocketDish RD-5G34 Antenna (RD-5G-34)

But where, colloquially, we just call that the radio & antenna, and, more
commonly, just the "antenna" since that forms the bulk of the apparatus.

Ken Hart

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 7:23:31 PM10/9/19

to

On 10/9/19 6:46 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Ken Hart wrote:
>> On 10/9/19 5:40 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>
>>> Char Jackson wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> On 2019-10-09 12:52 a.m., Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
>>>>>> The access point my desktop connects to is about a half dozen miles away.
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop.
>>>>>> The signal strength, even at more than a half-dozen miles, is about -55dBM.
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to hear more about this claim from the OP:
>>>> "An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop."
>>>
>>> Arlen is, as usual, using the wrong words, probably so "stupids like
>>> you(tm)" can understand his >9000IQ.
>>
>> And yet, he managed to confuse "stupids like (me)" tm.
>
> Yeah, that might not have been the best wording. Can never remember who
> all is on his list of people who aim only to derail conversations. I
> don't think anyone's actually stupid in here. Well, maybe me when I get
> baited by others...

I was not offended. And I think I'm on his list. I was disappointed when
I didn't make the list at first, so I tried extra hard to be a jerk.
Then I made the list!

>
> I'm sure he'll be along presently to spout off how I add nothing to
> discussions. :)

Well, you didn't use bullet points: "o"

>
>>
>>>
>>> As I recall, he uses a Ubiquiti Rocket M2 as a CPE device to connect to
>>> his ISP. I can't recall if you've used them before, so forgive me if
>>> you know this already. One "side" of the device is a long range 2.4 GHz
>>> radio, the other is a standard copper ethernet port.
>>
>> Now, that makes sense. So he plugs a small radio transceiver into the
>> RJ-45, not an antenna.
>
> Yeah, well, if you consider (approx) 8" x 4" x 2" with a 2 foot diameter
> antenna to be "small" :).

I didn't read the specs on the Ubiquiti page, but that sounds similar to
the radio on my roof for PPOE (Point to Point Over Ethernet). Except for
the antenna part. Mine has no visible antenna. But it's probably less
than 500' to the 'headend' radio on top of the town water tower. Mine
has an ethernet cable to the power supply (power over ethernet) inside,
where it connects to a router.

--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

Ken Hart

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 7:39:08 PM10/9/19

to

snip

When Mr Purgert brought up the Ubiquiti device, it all became clear to
me, especially since my 'backup' ISP uses similar equipment- don't know
if it's Ubiquiti brand, and I don't really want to climb up on my roof
to find out!

(My primary ISP is DSL via the local telco.)

My technical background is commercial broadcast engineering rather
Wireless ISP, so the word "antenna" has a more narrow meaning to me, and
it's not something with an RJ-45 connector, hence my confusion.

Thank you for your explanation and clarification.

--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

Dan Purgert

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 8:10:51 PM10/9/19

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Ken Hart wrote:
> On 10/9/19 6:46 PM, Dan Purgert wrote:

>> [...]

>> Yeah, well, if you consider (approx) 8" x 4" x 2" with a 2 foot diameter
>> antenna to be "small" :).
>
> I didn't read the specs on the Ubiquiti page, but that sounds similar to
> the radio on my roof for PPOE (Point to Point Over Ethernet). Except for
> the antenna part. Mine has no visible antenna. But it's probably less
> than 500' to the 'headend' radio on top of the town water tower. Mine
> has an ethernet cable to the power supply (power over ethernet) inside,
> where it connects to a router.

Sounds like its probably a Nanostation or Nanobeam then. I'm not a
radio engineer by any means, but I can at least make a fair pass at
designing long range microwave shots. :)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl2edwkACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFOSQgArsLRbev4CNydZQEApfmTtQEjkVjWRch7oE3DQa8YAbnrLsJH4bneDa0L
Dj/FiEeD6W5RjZgK+Pqflh5jYQyKUCpQN04wqcj5rCp7hLnP4n5VVj94KggCQ5qG
dxbh21MAGFLdFA8i+CenrPabhDpH85FCQPeSpskxwn45jofQ+Pw6fZ+BZEzLkxVG
BjqALQFyEbubQGznvKvZAUu83BwH6zuDGRWqhxBycw04PMRhxccB3SIldPDsUZia
w78/YUoEkwBUucFUqAdyc9ber2EZMmWGfr6rrRgH0Bofu+Y6/yBJ+6aoRXxZBD+f
i//djQJ+yuZj28O5KigOUV648PhkRQ==
=ges6

Frank Slootweg

unread,

Oct 10, 2019, 8:10:43 AM10/10/19

to

In my case, normally about 2 metre (80 inches), but sometimes as
little as about 5 cm (2 inches).

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 11, 2019, 1:59:04 PM10/11/19

to

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:32:21 +0200, Ammammata wrote:
>>at home, the ISP antenna is about 12 km away from home
>>max current speed in download is about 30Mb
>>
>>
>>xpost removed :)

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 14:15:04 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, why? Normally when someone says that I see that
> someone's added a political or similarly totally inappropriate 'group,
> but in this case all the 'groups seem relevant to a discussion of wifi
> (although we seem of course to be talking about two different sorts, the
> in-home and the ISP [is the latter even referred to as "wi-fi", or just
> "wireless"?]).

Hi Ammammata & J.P. Gilliver,

I post a lot of tutorials & helpful posts that benefit the Usenet potluck
o Where I strive to add details which verify the facts

Like you, I agree that all desktop users benefit from better WiFi options
o Particularly when they, like Ammammata, can access APs 12 km's away

At 30Mb/sec, no less!

To that end, it was also useful that pjp shared that his AP is 1km away
o Where the point is that anyone you can "see", you can share with

That's useful in a pinch - when good old American ingenuity is required
o Like when a neighborhood needs to set up WISP as we did ourselves

To that end, I just now added a few more 5GHz frequencies to my "antenna"
<https://www.ui.com/fcclabelrequest/>

Where I also had to physically add a sticker (believe it or not) to the
antenna, as per FCC rules since the revised UNII rules legally modified the
previously approved FCC ID, and, more to the point, it modified the
previously set up available frequencies (and, more importantly, it changes
the legally allowed EIRP, particularly at the fringes of the band, in order
to reduce emissions).

This apparently had multiple instant benefits, not the least of which were
additional bands in the 5GHz spectrum and lower emissions in those bands.

With that change, I'm apparently attaining instantly better speeds!
<http://speedtest.net>

I recommend users who want to connect to access points miles away, to keep
in mind the distances people like pjp, Ammammata, and I can attain with
reasonable speeds (with APs literally easily a dozen kilometers away).

--
Sharing information on the Usenet potluck to benefit all who attend.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 11, 2019, 2:58:55 PM10/11/19

to

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 21:40:16 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

> As I recall, he uses a Ubiquiti Rocket M2 as a CPE device to connect to
> his ISP. I can't recall if you've used them before, so forgive me if
> you know this already. One "side" of the device is a long range 2.4 GHz
> radio, the other is a standard copper ethernet port.

Hi Dan Purgert,

This is about power - changing feet to miles - at the same cost as before.

Take a look at this photo I just snapped for you, showing this setup works
when directly connected to any PC to amplify the power from feet to miles:
<https://i.postimg.cc/DfQJq437/mikrotikrouter.jpg>

The cost on the Microtik web site is about fifty dollars:
<https://mikrotik.com/product/RB411>

You were mostly correct in your assessment, where the main take away is
that one end is a standard female RJ45 which means any male-to-male Cat5
cable plugs it into anything you normally plug a RJ45 connector into.

For example, I'm sending you this from a powerful and yet inexpensive
Mikrotik antenna plugged directly into the back of my desktop at this very
moment, where a quick search on Amazon shows costs similar to normal
routers that everyone already has (but which only travel a few hundred
feet, which is infinitesimally puny compared to what this stuff does):
<https://www.amazon.com/MikroTik-RB911G-5HPacD-RouterBoard-911G-5HPacD/dp/B00UH8VWVQ>

I wish to clarify that the Wi-Fi equipment is the same (essentially) as
what EVERYONE already has in their home already - only better.

Bear in mind this Wi-Fi equipment is no different, fundamentally, from
everyone's SOHO router in almost everyone's home & office, and, more to the
point, the equipment is no different fundamentally from _any_ Wi-Fi
"amplifier", "repeater", or even "dongle" that people habitually attach to
their desktops and laptops to increase Wi-Fi connection distances.

The main difference isn't even price - as these radios which can connect to
APs miles away cost no more, in general, than any decent router does at
Frys here in the Silicon Valley.

The main difference is essentially POWER (which transmits to "distances").
o Those Wi-Fi access point distances are what this thread is all about.

And, of course, size (the antenna on these things adds 30 decibels alone!)

We have heard reports from users whose APs are as little as 1 km to as many
as a dozen times that distance - which _any_ desktop can attain, if the
user has the know how and the equipment discussed in this very thread.

Each of my desktops, in fact, has one such antenna attached to it,
where the desktop I'm on right is plugged into a Mikrotik router & antenna:
<https://i.postimg.cc/DfQJq437/mikrotikrouter.jpg>

--
The point is that it's not just for WISPs - it works for desktops also.

unread,

Oct 11, 2019, 3:53:02 PM10/11/19

to

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:23:49 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton wrote:

> I have a single WiFi router that reaches all over my house and a little
> bit outside. It really is all I need to access the Internet from my
> tablet while I'm sitting on the sofa or out on the deck.

Hi Cindy Hamilton,

If you already get good signal to and from anywhere you need to, with a
typical cable modem and SOHO router, then you have absolutely no need for
the technical acumen and powerful tools that this thread espouses.

Out here, where I live, above the Silicon Valley, just to give you an idea
of the distances involved, we have 40 acre zoning, which means you can't
even build a second house if you have only 79 acres of land.

Yet, we can 'see' millions of access points (literally and figuratively),
which means, if we wanted to, we can have a friend many miles away connect
his desktop to our cable modem (if we had a cable modem - which is
essentially what our "radio" is so it's the same thing in effect).

More to the point, if I want to beam my signal from my desktop to the pool,
which is only a few hundred feet away, I can, and if I want to reach the
driveway gate, which is also hundreds of feet from the house, I can.

Likewise with the barn, shed, shop, and parking area.
o All I need is an RJ45 port (on any router, modem, laptop, or desktop).

What's even better, is our houses are rather large, where we can easily
beam to all corners of the house from OUTSIDE the house.

All we do is connect a Cat5 cable to what you'd call a "cable modem", and
then we can beam the cable modem Internet signal back into the house.

Since the signal is penetrating a structure, it won't go for miles in that
case, but it's certainly powerful enough to penetrate to all floors and all
corners of the house.

I can't be the only person on this newsgroup who would like that kind of
power at about the same costs as what people are paying today for
"repeaters" and "wifi dongles" for their laptops and desktops.

In summary, you don't need anything whatsoever by way of power & distance
o And that's fine - as it's a very useful datapoint which we appreciate

Hopefully other people enjoy having this kind of power at the same cost.

--
Admittedly, the wifi dongles are tiny compared to this setup!

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

unread,

Oct 12, 2019, 1:19:02 AM10/12/19

to

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 19:39:06 -0400, Ken Hart wrote:

> When Mr Purgert brought up the Ubiquiti device, it all became clear to
> me, especially since my 'backup' ISP uses similar equipment- don't know
> if it's Ubiquiti brand, and I don't really want to climb up on my roof

> to find out!'

Hi Ken Hart,
Thanks for that purposefully helpful information, as Usenet is a potluck
where each of us brings what value we can share with the other members.

While I've repeatedly stated the cost of this powerful equipment is
essentially about what people already pay for their SOHO routers and their
repeaters, what I didn't say is that the equipment isn't generally to be
found in your basic "box" stores (e.g., Best Buy, Target, Walmart, Costco,
Home Depot, Frys, etc.).

Regarding the brands you seek, in my experience, two brands stand out:
o Ubiquiti <https://www.ui.com>
* Mikrotik <https://mikrotik.com>

While they're large corporations that produce many devices, in general
o Ubiquiti supplies low-cost well-made stand-alone complete units
o Mikrotik supplies even-lower-cost boards where you assemble it yourself

That's why you'll see my Ubiquiti equipment looks like this:
<https://i.postimg.cc/YqTk0q1T/ap.jpg>

While my Mikrotick equipment looks like this:
<https://i.postimg.cc/DfQJq437/mikrotikrouter.jpg>

> (My primary ISP is DSL via the local telco.)

The good news is that the techniques and equipment described in this
thread, work with ANY typical Ethernet connection, such as the ports in the
back of your DSL or cable modem, and your home router, and your laptop or
desktop PC Ethernet port.

That's the beauty of knowing how to use the tools described here
o They work in all common situations (you just need more shelf space)

> My technical background is commercial broadcast engineering rather
> Wireless ISP, so the word "antenna" has a more narrow meaning to me, and
> it's not something with an RJ-45 connector, hence my confusion.

I agree with you that the use of "antenna" to mean "transceiver + antenna"
is a colloquial use of the word, as is the use of "radio" or "router", and
even as is the use of "modem", where all are, for our purposes, essentially
the same thing.

We have a signal and a means to transmit that signal for miles (LOS).
o At just about the same cost as everyone here spends for their home router

But where the home router would be hard pressed to output 20 decibels
o And where we can easily transmit up to the legal limit around the world

Where every 3 decibels is twice the power - so that's a LOT of power
o Which is why any desktop can connect to an AP which is miles away

You just have to know what we've described in this thread to do it.

> Thank you for your explanation and clarification.

I am always happy to share knowledge, as I feel Usenet is a potluck where
adults share among themselves items of useful value to everyone.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 12, 2019, 3:00:58 PM10/12/19

to

On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:12:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

>>> It uses packets, but it's not Ethernet, the physical layer and lower
>>> protocol layers are totally different. Ethernet is defined on wires.
>>
>> Wrong again
>> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/wireless-products/wireless-ethernet-lan-faq.html
>
> Just because some new hire at Intel got it wrong, does not make it so.
> Notice that even there, aside from the title, they don't call Wi-Fi
> Ethernet. The relevant LAN standards are controlled by the IEEE
> under 802.X:

Hi Cindy & Trader,
Take a look at this photo of an outside antenna I just snapped for you:
<https://i.postimg.cc/SK04C6zL/ubiquiti-bullet-M2-hp.jpg>

Notice things about this setup (which costs what your stuff does):
o One end is typical Ethernet (which plugs into anything you've got)
o The other end is typical Wi-Fi (which works with whatever you have)

The fact is that this is ten to one hundred times the power you have
o At about the same price

You just have to understand this fact
o And then you have to have a need for that kind of power

What I find rather illuminating, given Usenet is a public potluck, is when
people like trader repeatedly show up to the public potluck, but they
always seem to bring absolutely nothing of any value to the table, while at
the same time, those people like trader brazenly deny that any of the food
that anyone else brought "tastes good" to him.

Meanwhile, the fact is that one end of these devices plugs into anything
that each of us has at home that naturally takes the RJ45 plug (whether or
not trader accepts that it's called "Ethernet" colloquially when we do
that).

Despite trader always trying to dispute even the most obvious of facts,
another basic fact is that the other end of these devices, is an antenna,
which has a motherboard attached which transmits at WiFi frequencies and
protocols (aka 802.11 a, b, g, n, ac, etc.).

FACT:
o These devices can cost about as much as your current equipment costs
o These devices are easily more than ten times more powerful though
o In general, these devices are a bit larger (not in all cases though)

While there are people like Cindy who don't need this power, there may well
be others who can make use of these tools to gain this 10X power
differential, at no greater cost than what they paid for the 10X weaker
SOHO routers they use today.

Additionally, while there are people like Gavin and Frank who use Cat5
cable to connect to devices, there are cases where that's infeasible, which
is when beaming your own signal to the far corners of your property from
your "modem" back into the house or to the pool or to the driveway entrance
gate, is feasible for some people.

Heck, some of your kids have tree forts, don't they? (I've always lived in
rural areas where tree forts were the norm for the neighborhood boys.)
Wouldn't it be nice to paint your kids' tree forts with Internet?

Here's a picture of just one of my antennas, this one being only about 15d
Bi or so, with a Ubiquiti Bullet of about 27dBm or so attached to it.
<https://i.postimg.cc/SK04C6zL/ubiquiti-bullet-M2-hp.jpg>

Since I'm trying to help others pick their equipment, here are current
prices, where you can see this costs as little as your typical router:
<https://www.ispsupplies.com/Ubiquiti-Bullet-M2HP>
<https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-BULLET-M2-HP-Outdoor-802-11-M2HP/dp/B002SYS22E>

Given 600 milliwatts is about 27 decibels, notice you already have about
ten times the power of your typical home router BEFORE you add an antenna!
<https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/power/mW_to_dBm.html>

You can get ten times ten times the power of your router
o When you add an inexpensive antenna to the radio

Bear in mind what I've been trying to get people like trader to understand
o One end is Ethernet (which connects to anything you've got that's RJ45)
o The other end is WiFi (which connects to anything you've got that's WiFi)

Notice you easily get from 10 times to 100 times (or more) the power...
o All at "about the same price" as you're paying now for your equipment

If you know how and if you know what to buy
o You can connect almost anything you have now in your home
o To almost anywhere else (if you can "see" the other side)
o Or, if it's within a few hundred feet, even if you can't see it

This is basic computer, Ethernet, & WiFi stuff.

The datasheet on that $80 bullet transceiver (aka "radio") shows the point
that one end is a connection to any desired antenna, while the other end is
the same typical Ethernet connection that we all have all over the place:
o Atheros MIPS 24KC, 400MHz, 32MB SDRAM, 8MB Flash
o Networking Interface 1 X 10/100 BASE-TX (Cat. 5, RJ-45) Ethernet
o 2.4GHz, 5GHz, 802.11 b,g,n
<https://www.ispsupplies.com/core/media/media.nl?id=944028&c=393682&h=f2a5cdc8f246f497555a>

Despite the fact there are people like trader who don't comprehend even
this simple Ethernet & WiFi stuff, the intelligent reader will instantly
notice that you can plug one end into your "modem" or into your "router",
which itself can be, they say, up to 100 meters away without a repeater:
<https://www.techwalla.com/articles/how-long-can-i-run-a-cat-5-cable>
But where, in practice, you generally mount that antenna outside much
closer than that because it beams the WiFi signal for miles anyway.

In summary:
o If you need to connectg to devices which can be miles away
o At about the same price that you pay now for your home equipment
o You can connect to those far away devices if you know how to do it

That's my contribution of value to this particular Usenet potluck thread.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 12, 2019, 4:50:10 PM10/12/19

to

On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 11:24:32 -0600, rbowman wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model
>
> IEEE 802.3 (Ethernet) and IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) layer 2 specifications. The
> OSI 7 layer model and RFC1122 5 layer model get cloudy when combined.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122
>
> The IEEE 802 family follows the OSI model and is concerned with how the
> physical layer is used to transmit data. 1122 is rooted in DARPA and
> like most government projects it assumed there was some sort of magic
> that was going to shuffle bits around. In any case the TCP/IP is way up
> the tree.

I think much of the confusion stems from the fact that we're discussing two
somewhat similar ways to connect an "antenna" to the back of a desktop.

To further clarify what others have been also clarifying, I snapped this
picture, just now, which shows two ways to connect an 'antenna' to the back
of a typical desktop computer (aka "Ethernet" & "Wi-Fi"):
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gh22Sb2N/desktop.jpg>

In the end analysis, while the costs are the same, the POWER is
fantastically different, and yet, the result is your typical "Wi-Fi", which
you can verify, for example, using your phone with freely available apps:
<https://i.postimg.cc/25v3FT6S/debug-on-android.jpg>

Notice that this desktop has both types of connections:
a. There's a typically puny Wi-Fi "device" attached to this desktop
b. There's a powerful Wi-Fi "device" attached to the desktop RJ45 port

Both cost about the same in terms of both price & setup (which is minimal).
o But only one will be found at a typical consumer-focused box store.

One will get you distances of roughly a few hundred feed (or so).
o While the other will garner distances easily of a few miles (or so).

Just to be clear for those who simply want us to explain tools more simply
o For the price of what people already seem to pay for their home stuff
o They can buy "this stuff" which easily connects to "your stuff"
<http://img4.imagetitan.com/img4/yc96C7uYT0bZcOj/18/18_wifi.jpg>

Where "your stuff" includes anything you have in the house that
o Connects to what we colloquially refer to as "Ethernet", or,
o Connects to what we colloquially refer to as "Wi-Fi".

Where the main drawback of "this stuff" is
o It's generally a bit larger (but not always) so you need shelf space
o You definitely won't ever find "this stuff" in the normal box stores

So you simply have to KNOW that this kind of power is available to you.
o And then you simply need advice on "what stuff" to purchase online

Where, the elegant beauty of "this stuff" is the sheer simplicity of it all
o One end of "this stuff" is what we colloquially refer to as "Ethernet"
o The other end is what we colloquially refer to as "Wi-Fi".

For example, here is a picture of "this stuff" showing both hose ends:
<https://i.postimg.cc/SK04C6zL/ubiquiti-bullet-M2-hp.jpg>
And here is another picture of "this stuff" showing both those ends:
<https://i.postimg.cc/DfQJq437/mikrotikrouter.jpg>
Where this pictures shows some of the many shapes & sizes of "this stuff"
<https://i.postimg.cc/YqTk0q1T/ap.jpg>

Notice the key colloquial takeaway to explain the immense power here:
o One end attaches to ANYTHING you have that you'd call "Ethernet"
o The other end attaches to ANYTHING else that you'd call "Wi-Fi"

--
My contribution to the Usenet potluck is that this power is available to
you, should you ever need it, at about the same price you're paying now,
for box-store equipment which is ten to one hundred times less powerful.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 12, 2019, 5:36:03 PM10/12/19

to

On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 14:02:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

> On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 3:56:08 PM UTC-4, Al Gore wrote:
>> On 10/12/2019 1:12 PM, trader_4 wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 12:48:29 PM UTC-4, Al Gore wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/19 11:57 AM, trader_4 wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 6:29:18 AM UTC-4, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 6:08:41 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

>>>>>>> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 3:51:37 PM UTC-4, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:25:16 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And only a loon would define wifi access at your home as meaning you
>>>>>>>>>> have to put in eqpt at some 'friend's house' kilometers away to make
>>>>>>>>>> it possible. I'm with you, there are various wifi hotspots in the
>>>>>>>>>> area around here, but none that I can pick up at my home.
>>>>>>>>> I don't use WiFi hotspots. You never know where they've been.

>>>>>>>> While it's normal for Trader to misunderstand even the most basic of things
>>>>>>>> o In general, most users on this newsgroup comprehend what Ethernet is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would exclude you, because you're talking about Wi-Fi and Wi-Fi
>>>>>>> isn't Ethernet.
>>>>>> Ehhh. It sort of is, since it uses the Ethernet packet protocol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cindy Hamilton

>>>>> It uses packets, but it's not Ethernet, the physical layer and lower
>>>>> protocol layers are totally different. Ethernet is defined on wires.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Wrong again
>>>>
>>>> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/wireless-products/wireless-ethernet-lan-faq.html
>>> Just because some new hire at Intel got it wrong, does not make it so.
>>> Notice that even there, aside from the title, they don't call Wi-Fi
>>> Ethernet. The relevant LAN standards are controlled by the IEEE
>>> under 802.X:
>>>
>>>

>>> [snip]
>>
>> https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/local-area-network-wi-fi-wireless,3020-5.html
>>
>> Wireless Ethernet: 820.11a To 820.11g
>> The most common forms of wireless networking are built around various versions of the IEEE 802.11 wireless Ethernet standards, including IEEE 802.11b, IEEE 802.11a, IEEE 802.11g, and IEEE 802.11n.
>
> Given the choice between Tom's Hardware and the IEEE that controls
> the actual 802 LAN standards, I know which one I'd go with. You're
> free to do as you please. Even if you walk into a BestBuy and
> ask for an Ethernet card, do you think you;re going to get a WiFi
> card? And if you walk in and ask for a WiFi card, I suppose you
> think they will direct you to the gigabit Ethernet cards? Funny
> how laptops and such have typically had both Ethernet and WiFi
> available, one through a wired connector, the other through the air,
> eh?

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?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.home.repair/ST-xNgC5pnU/agDaRH_JAgAJ>

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

Well then, allow me to refresh your memory, Trader:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.home.repair/ST-xNgC5pnU/vkePS4r-AgAJ>
Where your purposefully & decidedly unhelpful "help" was, verbatim...
"Silly me, I just pay $15 a tire to get them mounted and
dynamically balanced. No fuss, no muss..."

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.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gh22Sb2N/desktop.jpg>

--
My contribution to the Usenet potluck in this thread is to explain what
options are available to the typical home user that they might not know are
available to them, and, better yet, at about the same price they are
paying now for what is very likely to be far less powerful equipment. If
they NEED the power described here, then (and only then) this is
potentially useful technical information, particularly since this equipment
is NOT found in the typical consumer oriented hardware or electronic box
stores.

Lucifer

unread,

Oct 12, 2019, 10:43:33 PM10/12/19

to

On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 04:00:11 -0000 (UTC), Arlen _G_ Holder
<_arlen....@halder.edu> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 14:32:08 +1100, Lucifer wrote:
>
>>>An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop.
>>
>> That will not work.
>
>Hi Lucifer,
>
>Since Usenet is an open sharing of ideas and helpful hints...
>o I'm curious why you think it won't work.

Ethernet is a cable format. It will not recognise a radio signal.

>Particularly since I've been successful doing this for many years.
>
>>
>>>The signal strength, even at more than a half-dozen miles, is about -55dBM.
>>
>> That's a long ethernet cable.
>
>It's a WiFi connection on one end; Ethernet on the other end.

No it's not. Has to be one or the other both ends.
I was a communications technician so I should know.

unread,

Oct 12, 2019, 11:36:04 PM10/12/19

to

Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 13:47:08 +1100, Lucifer wrote:
>
>>> But where the home router would be hard pressed to output 20 decibels
>> decibel is not a unit of power.
>
> Hi Lucifer,
>
> I realize you said you were a communication technician, and then you said
> that what I know works, you say, apparently, it doesn't work:

DBM or dbm may refer to:

Science and technology

dBm, a unit for power measurement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm

dBm... is used in radio, microwave and fiber-optical
communication networks as a convenient measure of absolute power

power ratio is expressed in decibels (dB) with reference to one milliwatt (mW)

Example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi

Equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) in the European Union
is limited to 20 dBm (100 mW).

Paul

Lewis

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 12:22:52 AM10/13/19

to

In message <3g35qehdpmknp0np4...@4ax.com> Lucifer <LuciferMo...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 04:00:11 -0000 (UTC), Arlen _G_ Holder
> <_arlen....@halder.edu> wrote:

>>On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 14:32:08 +1100, Lucifer wrote:
>>
>>>>An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop.
>>>
>>> That will not work.
>>
>>Hi Lucifer,
>>
>>Since Usenet is an open sharing of ideas and helpful hints...
>>o I'm curious why you think it won't work.

> Ethernet is a cable format.

Not accurate. There are many types of Ethernet connections. The first
Ethernet I used was a coax cable. My office is connected via a
fiber optic Ethernet connection.

> It will not recognise a radio signal.

This is true, but generally the change from Ethernet to radio and back is
seamless to the user (like in WiFi), and nearly never of any importance
to anyone at all.

--
So here's us, on the raggedy edge. Don't push me. And I won't push you.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 1:08:09 AM10/13/19

to

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 04:22:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

>> Ethernet is a cable format.
>
> Not accurate. There are many types of Ethernet connections. The first
> Ethernet I used was a coax cable. My office is connected via a
> fiber optic Ethernet connection.
>
>> It will not recognise a radio signal.
>
> This is true, but generally the change from Ethernet to radio and back is
> seamless to the user (like in WiFi), and nearly never of any importance
> to anyone at all.

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:
<https://i.postimg.cc/SK04C6zL/ubiquiti-bullet-M2-hp.jpg>

This home-built $50 WiFi-to-Ethernet-and-Ethernet-to-Wifi setup also works:
<https://i.postimg.cc/DfQJq437/mikrotikrouter.jpg>

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:
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gh22Sb2N/desktop.jpg>

And still get great signal strength of around -55dBm of power:
<https://i.postimg.cc/DZccY2YD/decibels.jpg>

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:
<https://i.postimg.cc/XJChDCPr/spare-access-points.jpg>

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:
<https://i.postimg.cc/BZrZpDyp/debug-apps.jpg>

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.

--
I take the time to post pictures becuase I care about my credibility.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 1:46:40 AM10/13/19

to

On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 23:36:02 -0400, Paul wrote:

> power ratio is expressed in decibels (dB) with reference to one milliwatt (mW)

Thanks Paul for explaining things to Lucifer using better social skills
than I have to deal with people, like Lucifer & nospam, who seems to
brazenly outright deny facts that are obviously not even close to deniable,
since they're facts everyone knows - but them.

Lucifer, supposedly previously a "communications technician", doesn't seem
to even be aware that decibels (whether dBi, dBm, or EIRP) are used for
"power" measurements (along with watts - but those relative decibels are
used more in radio communications such as those we're discussing here), as
shown in the router configuration pages itself:
<https://i.postimg.cc/VvqLKQtQ/wifi.jpg>

For example, nospam has had a similar problem confusing decibels & megabits
o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/rX-L9xbYAQAJ>

As did Snit, when he posted this hilarious video which nospam supported,
supposedly showing that decibels and megabits are exactly the same thing:
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>

They, and quite a few other apologists, repeatedly insisted that iOS had
apps which had the basic capability to graph wifi signal strength for all
visible access points over time, which Android clearly has had for years:
<https://i.postimg.cc/25v3FT6S/debug-on-android.jpg>

It's doesn't even dawn on such people that they just make up everything.
o Their entire belief system is underlain by exactly zero facts.

I just do not have the social skills to deal tacitly with such people.

What's amazing about these types of people, whether nospam, Lucifer, or
Snit (and, interestingly, quite a few others on the Apple ngs) is how
certain they are of themselves, sans even a single valid fact to back up
what amounts to a wholly imaginary and yet very strong belief system.

It's amazing, actually, to me, that people like nospam, Snit, & Lucifer
exist in droves (particularly on Apple newsgroups), where they must never
deal with people who can ascertain the differnece between fact and
imagination.

Hence, what Lucifer said, is like anything nospam or Snit says, which is
even less credible than the result of a coin toss.

None of these people could last a week in the Silicon Valley for sure.
o Nor could they last a single semester in grad school, for sure.

And yet, these people, Lucifer, Snit, nospam, etc.,
o Are so very sure of themselves that they brazenly deny well known facts.

I just do not have the necessary social skills to deal with such people.
o Hence I thank you for your patient response explaining facts to Lucifer

Paul

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 1:50:12 AM10/13/19

to

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 10:38:38 AM10/13/19

to

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 03:08:48 -0000 (UTC), Arlen _G_ Holder
<_arlen....@halder.edu> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 13:43:28 +1100, Lucifer wrote:
>
>>>o I'm curious why you think it won't work.
>>
>> Ethernet is a cable format. It will not recognise a radio signal.
>
>Hi Lucifer,
>
>Hmm... I'm not sure "how" to respond to that statement when this works:
><https://i.postimg.cc/Gh22Sb2N/desktop.jpg>
>
>Note the "antenna" plugged into the "Ethernet" port of the desktop PC.
>o It works fine.

Better check your picture. There is no antenna plugged into the Ethernet
port. Instead, it's some kind of 'router board', which you might also call
a radio, a router, an access point, a transceiver, etc. It's definitely not
an antenna, but if you look closely, you'll see that it has an antenna
connected to the other side of it. Perhaps that is what confused you.

>What makes you think it doesn't work?

What made you think it was an antenna? You can't plug an antenna into an
Ethernet port.

>Maybe we're talking about different things?

Correct. You were talking about a radio, a router, an access point, a
transceiver, etc., but mistakenly called it an antenna. People objected to
that incorrect use of terminology.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 11:21:07 AM10/13/19

to

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 08:18:51 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> For example, nospam has had a similar problem confusing decibels & megabits
>
> i've never been confused about that nor does your link support what you
> claim (as usual).
>
>> o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
>
> absolutely false.

For the edification of the audience, nospam is playing childish games.

On the Android Google Play app store are plenty of WiFi debugging apps,
where, for example, as the "name just one" proof, here are screenshots:
<https://i.postimg.cc/TYtzDX51/wifiprivacy05.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/bYTM7jTg/wifiprivacy06.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/hjnyYCQN/wifiprivacy07.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/g0V43vts/wifiprivacy08.jpg>
<https://i.postimg.cc/cHTmbdS8/wifiprivacy09.jpg>
etc.

The fact is nospam fails the simplest test of imaginary belief systems
o Name just one

That is, nobody on this planet, least of all nospam, can name just one
app on the iOS app store that can do what so many Android apps do, it's not
funny.

Not a single one.
o And, there never has been one on the app store (to our knowledge).

People like nospam likely wouldn't last a month in Silicon Valley startups,
where I worked for decades, being no more credible than the result of a
coin toss.
o People trying to get things done don't deal well with childish games.

People like nospam likely wouldn't last a semester in grad school:
o Being dead wrong literally half the time, they'd get kicked out.

Only on Usenet, apparently, can people like nospam survive.

The silly childish semantic game nospam is playing is that he is hiding
that his feeling is that it must be "possible" for someone to possibly
write that app in order to provide that functionality to the user - which
may or may not be the case - as the fact remains that he fails the simplest
credibility test that anyone can devise.
o Name just one

Why do people like nospam play these silly childish worthless games?
o I don't know why.

Do you?

Anyway, to get some "value" out of this conversation to share with the
adult Usenet potluck participants, I have the following Android freeware
apps on my phone to help debug iOS and Android and WiFi connection issues,
although over time, many of these free apps add advertisements, so it's my
advice to stick with the older versions whenever possible.
o Fing, com.overlook.android.fing
o FRITZ!App Fon, de.avm.android.fritzapp
o FRITZ!App WLAN, de.avm.android.wlanapp
o FRITZ!App WLAN Basic, de.avm.android.wlanapp.basic
o IP Tools, com.ddm.iptools
o Network Analyzer, net.techet.netanalyzerlite.an
o Network Signal Info, de.android.telnet
o Signal Strength, com.cls.networkwidget
o Wifi Analyser, com.keuwl.wifi <== this one is nice
o Wifi Analyzer, com.farproc.wifi.analyzer
o WiFi Analyzer, abdelrahman.wifianalyzerpro
o Wifi Analyzer, com.farproc.wifi.analyzer.classic
o WiFi Analyzer, uk.co.soapysoft.wifianalyzer
o WiFi Analyzer, com.wifianalyzer.networktools.networkanalyzer
o WiFi Signal Strength, com.northbridge.wifisignalstrength

And, for cellular, I have:
o Cellular-Z, make.more.r2d2.cellular_z

Note: I have both a cellular repeater, and a cellular femtocell in my
house, where T-Mobile has been generous to me by providing both, where the
repeater is a two-part device, one of which sits in an upstairs window,
while the other is in the center of the house - and - where the femtocell
is attached to the SOHO router - where the cellular debugging tools tell us
exactly which has the strongest signal at any particular time & location.

--
Note: That editable text list of apps was generated by "List My Apps", on
the phone, all by its itty bitty self, which, is, yet again, something
nospam claims is on iOS (all by its itty bitty self), but which simply
doesn't exist on iOS standalone (despite his childish games).
o List My Apps, de.onyxbits.listmyapps

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 11:50:39 AM10/13/19

to

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 09:38:37 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

> What made you think it was an antenna?
> You can't plug an antenna into an Ethernet port.

Hi Char Jackson,

The fact I ignored your prior silly games notwithstanding...
o It seems you can't stop playing them - if you're left unchallenged.

For the record, below is a listing of people who, historically,
can almost never seem to add any adult value to the Usenet potluck.

On these Usenet ngs, where adults share items of technical value...
o These people seem to enjoy incessant playing of silly childish games:

o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Beedle <Bee...@dont-email.me>
o "Boris T." <b...@lsd.invalid> (a common troll)
o Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid>
o Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r...@WizardsTower.invalid> (always a child)
o Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> (sometimes, but only rarely posts as an adult)
o David Catterall <djc...@eircom.net> (a common troll)
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Diesel <m...@privacy.net> (aka Dustin Cook, mentally scary)
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o Elfin <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka Lloyd, aka Lloyd Parsons)
o Fox's Mercantile <jda...@att.net> Jeff
o "G. B" <g...@gb.com>
o Hemidactylus <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o Idaho Homo Joe <dick...@aol.com> (worthless common moron troll)
o Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> (mostly is an adult but often is a child)
o John Gabriel <NoS...@nospam.net> (can only troll)
o joe <no...@domain.invalid> (rarely, but sometimes posts as an adult would)
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o John Doe <alway...@message.header> worthless posts always
o John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net>
o John-Del <ohg...@gmail.com>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Ken Hart <kwh...@frontier.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o Lloyd <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Lucifer <LuciferMo...@bigpond.com> (plays silly semantic games)
o Meanie <M...@gmail.com>
o Shemp14 <she...@outlook.com>
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> (bullshitter par excellence)
o Nil <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net>
o Panthera Tigris Altaica <northe...@outlook.com>
o Paul Raymond (aka porn king) <arling...@nospam.net> (porn obsessed)
o "pf...@aol.com" <peterw...@gmail.com> Peter Wieck, Melrose Park, PA
o Rene Lamontagne <rla...@shaw.ca> (always posts as a child would post)
o "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available> (aka Rudy Wieser) (always a child)
o Sandman <m...@sandman.net> (hates facts)
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
o she...@outlook.com
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser, troll's troll)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Wolf K <wol...@sympatico.ca> (always posts as a child)
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.

Lewis

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 11:54:58 AM10/13/19

to

In message <slrnqq60n...@djph.net> Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> wrote:

> Lewis wrote:
>> In message <3g35qehdpmknp0np4...@4ax.com> Lucifer <LuciferMo...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 04:00:11 -0000 (UTC), Arlen _G_ Holder
>>> <_arlen....@halder.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 14:32:08 +1100, Lucifer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>An antenna is plugged into the RJ45 Ethernet port on the desktop.
>>>>>
>>>>> That will not work.
>>>>
>>>>Hi Lucifer,
>>>>
>>>>Since Usenet is an open sharing of ideas and helpful hints...
>>>>o I'm curious why you think it won't work.
>>
>>> Ethernet is a cable format.
>>
>> Not accurate. There are many types of Ethernet connections. The first
>> Ethernet I used was a coax cable. My office is connected via a
>> fiber optic Ethernet connection.

> Both of which are "cables". :)

Nut none of which are "a cable format"

>> This is true, but generally the change from Ethernet to radio and back is
>> seamless to the user (like in WiFi), and nearly never of any importance
>> to anyone at all.

> Great, now Arlen is gonna latch onto this and use it as "see, someone
> agrees with my entirely incorrect description of reality."

Sadly, who ever replied to Arlen didn't reply correctly, so the fact
that Dipshit troll posted wasn't carried forward, otherwise I would
never have seen this thread.

> While Lucifer was perhaps a little lacking on details, the entire
> discussion right now is based around Arlen's claims of having an antenna
> (as in literally just that passive component) plugged into an ethernet
> port on his computer, and it properly connecting to some
> 802.11a/b/g/n/ac WiFi network.

Well, he is stupid, so he may think his "antenna" is just an antenna.
But he thinks a hundred dozen stupid things before breakfast every day.

--
'It's a lovely morning, lads,' he said. 'I feel like a million dollars.
Don't you?' There was a murmur of reluctant agreement. 'Good,' said
Cohen. 'Let's go and get some.' --Interesting Times

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 12:03:08 PM10/13/19

to

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 10:56:45 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

> Great, now Arlen is gonna latch onto this and use it as "see, someone
> agrees with my entirely incorrect description of reality."
>
> While Lucifer was perhaps a little lacking on details, the entire
> discussion right now is based around Arlen's claims of having an antenna
> (as in literally just that passive component) plugged into an ethernet
> port on his computer, and it properly connecting to some
> 802.11a/b/g/n/ac WiFi network.

Hi Dan Purgert,

Play your silly childish games, Dan.
o Play.

We go way back, Dan, where you often play your silly childish games.
o In this thread, until now, you refrained from playing your silly games.

The fact is that I explained in this thread that nobody who is an adult
trying to get something done plays these silly childish games when we're
discussing designing, choosing, purchasing, setting up, repairing, and
debugging our WISP network here, for about a hundred people, Dan.

Nobody.

When we're working on a roof top, we don't play your silly little games.
o Only on Usenet do you get away with playing your silly childish games.

People trying to get things done don't play these silly childish games.

Everyone who works with this stuff knows EXACTLY what we mean when we
colloquially say, for example, our signal strength is 55 decibels.
Everyone, Dan. At least everyone who is an adult. They know it's minus.
They know it's dBm.

When we mention we have a noise floor of 99 decibels, Dan, they know that
it's normally around 105 decibels, Dan. Nobody quibbles about the dBm, and
certainly nobody childishly quibbles bout the minus sign (as it's always
minus in this realm). Always.

If we say we need the 34 decibel antenna on a rooftop, instead of the 28
decibel antenna, nobody who is an adult reminds us that it's dBi and not
decibels, as the child-like Lucifer attempted. Nobody Dan.

When we say we "paint" the pool with a "lobe", we all know EXACTLY what
that means, Dan. We don't play your silly games by saying 'where's the
paint?" or some other such fifth-grade fart-joke humor on your part.

If we say we need to climb a tree to cut some limbs off because they're
intruding into the path, nobody brings up the semantics of the order of
magnitude in each Fresnel Zone, Dan. They just don't play silly games.

Only people who own childish minds - who can't otherwise contribute adult
technical value, Dan, play these silly little childish semantic games.

Likewise, when we say "hook up the antenna to that pole", Dan, they know
there is ALWAYS a radio attached to the antenna for Christs' sake, Dan.

People who are actually trying to get something done, Dan...
o Don't incessantly play these childish silly semantic games.

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 1:00:13 PM10/13/19

to

Decibel is not a unit of power, it is a ratio between two sources. Mr
Lucifer is correct. Technically.

However, in common use, decibel is often compared to a certain standard.
For example, in audio transmission, there is dBm. If a signal is 3dBm,
it is 3 decibels over 1 milliwatt over 600 ohms reference level.

Mr Holder has referred to dBi. This is commonly used to compare a radio
signal from a directional antenna to that from a non-directional
antenna. The "i" stands for isotropic. For example, a dish antenna may
be said to be 27dBi; the signal is 27dB over that of a non-directional
(isotropic) antenna. But we still don't know what the actual power
output is. If we _assume_ that the reference is 1mW (One milliwatt,
which is common), then the effective radiated power "on the beam" at a
specific distance would be equivalent to 500 mW fed to a non-directional
antenna at the same specific distance.

dBi is still a ratio of the effective radiated power between two
antennas, one a reference non-directional antenna, and the other a
non-directional antenna. If you feed both antennas with 1mW, 1W, or
1000W, it doesn't matter; the ratio of the effective radiated power is
the same and the dBi will be the same. In common parlance, the reference
is 1mW

Personally, in my background as a (retired) broadcast engineer, we used
dBm to measure audio in the transmission lines, and watts to measure
audio at the amplifier output. We used watts to measure transmitter
output/antenna input. If we were dealing with a high-power directional
antenna out in the field, we might refer to the signal in dB between two
directions: "at 90 degrees to the major lobe, the signal is -60dB".
Decibel is correct here because we are referring to two signal levels.

If we needed an absolute measurement of radio frequency intensity, we
would refer to the signal in mV/m (millivolts per meter) at a specific
distance to the antenna.

--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

Lloyd Parsons

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 1:05:56 PM10/13/19

to

Kind of explains why he lives in the mountains, away from the rest of
civilization doesn’t it? :)

--
Lloyd

nospam

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 1:32:43 PM10/13/19

to

In article <qnvfd1$shl$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen _G_ Holder
<_arlen....@halder.edu> wrote:

>
> For the edification of the audience, I am playing childish games.

ftfy

Paul

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 2:52:24 PM10/13/19

to

Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 09:38:37 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> What made you think it was an antenna?
>> You can't plug an antenna into an Ethernet port.
>
> Hi Char Jackson,
>
> The fact I ignored your prior silly games notwithstanding...
> o It seems you can't stop playing them - if you're left unchallenged.
>

I wasn't going to waste my time on this, but when you
auger in, you push the throttle to the floor, to
enhance the crash.

An "antenna" is a rather simple device. We'll get
back to this page in a moment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yagi-Uda

An antenna, is a means of coupling an electrical signal
(typically presented on coaxial cable [unbalanced] or
via ladder line [balanced] ) to the E and H fields of
the atmosphere (the media). The antenna is in a sea of
dielectric (mostly air, some vacuum, a little plastic around the
elements to insulate them). The emission from the
antenna can have polarization. An antenna placed to receive
a transmitted signal, may need to match polarization
and use the same orientation, as the transmitting
antenna used. So as well as "pointing" an antenna
(an antenna with "directional gain"), you may need to
orient the antenna such that it works with the polarization
of the signal. (A typical example, in the lab, is rotating
a physics lab microwave horn until a signal is received.)

Here is a reference to the E-plane and H-plane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-plane_and_H-plane

Now, in the Yagi article, I particularly liked this picture.
Because it has almost all of the element types an antenna
designer would be interested in. The "behavior" of the elements
has been assigned names, but you don't buy "a pound of directors".
All the elements are just hollow rods of metal, cut to
specific lengths suited to the lambda of the transmitting
frequency. When you study antennas in 4NEC2, after a while
it becomes more natural to assign "roles", when in the end,
they're just metal rods and humans like to label stuff and
make it easier to "parse" what an antenna is doing. Perhaps
a larger Yagi, with many elements (arranged log-periodic),
would have a couple reflectors but many more directors.
Our naming convention then, is just a handy way to explain
why, as the Yagi gets longer, it becomes more directional.

https://i.postimg.cc/bwXgtrC7/yagi.gif

Missing from that picture, is the Earths surface. Some antenna
types, rely on a "ground plane" as an element in the antenna.
The behavior of such antennas, may vary in effectiveness, because
of the "quality" of the ground. Perhaps an antenna in Florida
(poor soil conductivity) would vary in such cases. So while
visually, we focus on those elements, sometimes the earth
beneath the antenna is a consideration. Perhaps when you
put a whip antenna on the top of a car, the metal car body
plays a part in your transmissions (as otherwise, the car
is "floating" with respect to the earth).

The RF spectrum covers a very wide range of frequencies,
and where the RF signal travels, changes with those
frequencies. Apparently this one relies on ground wave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWVB#Propagation

(super low frequencies transmitted with a small coil of wire:
this is a WWVB emulator.)

https://hackaday.com/2018/09/10/no-signal-for-your-radio-controlled-watch-just-make-your-own-transmitter/

Some even lower frequencies, send signals to submarines,
at relatively low baud rates. The antennas mentioned
in this article, are 60 kilometres and 52 kilometers in
length, and each requires its own power plant, due to the
inefficiency. If you're underwater and need to receive
a launch code, this is a way to do that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarines

*******

When it comes to the device plugged into an Ethernet port,
we typically summarize what they do, with things like
"protocol stacks" or other kinds of stack-like drawings.

Each layer in the stack does something.

In an electronics box that plugs into your Ethernet port,
would be a modulator/demodulator. It converts some
kind of electrical signal (such as a baseband Ethernet
signal), into a modulated 2.4GHz Wifi signal. We have
many different modulator/demodulator types.

ADSL modem (ethernet to twisted pair phone wire, baseband)

Cable modem (ethernet to coaxial RF signal, many frequencies,
the cable modem using *no* antenna as transmission
of the signal is always coaxial so as not to pollute
the airwaves with the broadband nature of the signal.)

Tethered 3G modem (ethernet to RF signal,
suited to driving an antenna as the final step,
the signal being on one frequency and subject to FCC approval)

Wifi access point (a modulator/demodulator for Ethernet packets
on baseband, suited to driving an antenna
as the final step, at frequencies such as 2.4GHz
or 5GHz, in limited bands, subject to FCC approval)

The antenna is a separate part of the equipment, either internal
on the PCB, or connectorized for convenient disassembly.

If we look carefully at the electronics in the tethered
device, we find a modulator/demodulator function, but in
some cases additional protocol steps are housed in
there as well. For example, if PPPOE or PPPOA or other
Point to Point Protocol (with authentication) is present,
we might admit there is a "router" function in there
as well. It might not be a full router function, but
trying to dig up another more specific name for what
it's doing is a nuisance. Suffice to say, the routing
step is "a step that accepts packets on one side and
emits packets on the other side, suitable for
direct computer usage without additional steps".

Pedantically yours,

Paul (and no, I *didn't* want to write this, but
your persistent ignorance pays off yet again!)

Ken Hart

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 2:52:44 PM10/13/19

to

No, we don't know that. 55 decibels referenced to 1mW (55dBm) would be
about 300 watts, a very conceivable power output in some services.

>
> When we mention we have a noise floor of 99 decibels, Dan, they know that
> it's normally around 105 decibels, Dan. Nobody quibbles about the dBm, and
> certainly nobody childishly quibbles bout the minus sign (as it's always
> minus in this realm). Always.

If someone mentioned a noise floor of 99dB, I would ask if that
jackhammer is running all day. The minus sign is incredibly important,
or you could say that the noise floor is "99dB down", but "-99dB" is
shorter and accomplishes the same thing.

And the minus sign is not always present in the realm of computer
networking. A bluetooth class 2 radio is +4dBm (2.5mW) at 10 meters.
Laptop wifi radio is +15dBm (32mW) typically. As mentioned in passing
above, "dBm" is referenced to 1 milliwatt.

>
> If we say we need the 34 decibel antenna on a rooftop, instead of the 28
> decibel antenna, nobody who is an adult reminds us that it's dBi and not
> decibels, as the child-like Lucifer attempted. Nobody Dan.

In that context- as a comparison- it's reasonable. But here in the
Usenet "potluck", it is helpful to refer to 34dB _gain_ or 32dBi.

>
> When we say we "paint" the pool with a "lobe", we all know EXACTLY what
> that means, Dan. We don't play your silly games by saying 'where's the
> paint?" or some other such fifth-grade fart-joke humor on your part.

Again, in the Usenet "potluck", "aiming" the antenna would be more
helpful than the industry insider word "paint". That's just being
unhelpful. Maybe there should be a list of people who are unhelpful. Oh,
yeah, it's your sig.

>
> If we say we need to climb a tree to cut some limbs off because they're
> intruding into the path, nobody brings up the semantics of the order of
> magnitude in each Fresnel Zone, Dan. They just don't play silly games.
>
> Only people who own childish minds - who can't otherwise contribute adult
> technical value, Dan, play these silly little childish semantic games.

Actually "semantic games" implies grammar. Perhaps "pedantic games"
would be better. Just trying to contribute to the Usenet potluck.

>
> Likewise, when we say "hook up the antenna to that pole", Dan, they know
> there is ALWAYS a radio attached to the antenna for Christs' sake, Dan.

How would we know? If I were going to install an antenna on a pole, I
would not connect the radio until the pole and antenna was securely in
place. If the antenna or mast were to come into contact with a power
line during installation, I would not want the radio connected.

If you are going to use industry jargon (to avoid being helpful to the
Usenet potluck), then you "mount" the antenna to the pole, and "hook up"
the antenna to the radio; with "mount" being a physical connection and
"hook up" being an electrical connection. Please try to be an adult and
bring something useful to the Usenet potluck.

Just to bring something of value to the Usenet potluck, the typical
order of installation of an electronic system is:
o 1. Physical installation of all components.
o 2. Electrical connection of all components.
o 3. Power on components, starting with the lowest power unit first.

>
> People who are actually trying to get something done, Dan...
> o Don't incessantly play these childish silly semantic games.
>

Yeah, I really think that should be "pedantic" instead of "semantic".

--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

Dan Purgert

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 3:14:13 PM10/13/19

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Paul wrote:
> [...]

> Paul (and no, I *didn't* want to write this, but
> your persistent ignorance pays off yet again!)

Nice explanation, Paul. Too bad it'll sail over his head.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl2jd4EACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooHopAgAn+F1gyC/4wQWPWyblnKqxi9ZFzZBGIn+LEgpHPSUl36D1UBSZAsEfL0T
q9WSuVSt4tE7xpsJle5ZaPx/ZQVuHKbuPdqk0DPfABOHY015DqeRXJ4yJb535oc/
M7gY4H5EpVrjdFDxGFOPOy/f6Hl2HltreGXd5wkFtga5o7LCF0buFDB7PLgKi0X8
CakEdf2JzA7z4rCLI5zUx5ZmPjT9q/eWfbVbCujFzMCWLPTUgKlz+gcYNtHTWyRD
nzg0BpeWue48npklbr+TJguTKflLiepUyuoci6QV+WUy3n6hl8cmzSGG4oLOqS91
9b66uB46soWwuuZA3nfzs4FL3Cl3FA==
=k9oV

Dan Purgert

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 3:21:34 PM10/13/19

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Lewis wrote:

> In message <slrnqq60n...@djph.net> Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> wrote:
>
>> Lewis wrote:

>>> [...]

>>> Not accurate. There are many types of Ethernet connections. The first
>>> Ethernet I used was a coax cable. My office is connected via a
>>> fiber optic Ethernet connection.
>
>> Both of which are "cables". :)
>
> Nut none of which are "a cable format"

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 4:27:32 PM10/13/19

to

On 10/13/19 3:53 PM, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 16:48:08 -0000 (UTC)
> Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen....@halder.edu> wrote:
>
>> my response to your post is even more of a waste of our time.
>
> FINALLY you've gotten something right! Way to go!
>

I'm retired. I got nothin' but time!

--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

Cybe R. Wizard

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 5:27:25 PM10/13/19

to

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 16:27:28 -0400
Ken Hart <kwh...@frontier.com> wrote:

> On 10/13/19 3:53 PM, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 16:48:08 -0000 (UTC)
> > Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen....@halder.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> my response to your post is even more of a waste of our time.
> >
> > FINALLY you've gotten something right! Way to go!
> >
>
> I'm retired. I got nothin' but time!
>

Heh, me, too.

That's the only reason I devote time to him at all. If he'd just leave
me out of his list he'd never even see me again.

But he won't.

He can't. That's a large part of his mental problem.

--
Cybe R. Wizard

If every man was a genius, there would be no idiots, and no gauge for
the intelligence of man.
Kehlog Albran, "The Profit"

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 6:14:56 PM10/13/19

to

In message <20191013144344.5b7ebf96@WizardsTower>, Cybe R. Wizard

<cybe_r...@WizardsTower.invalid> writes:
>On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 16:03:07 -0000 (UTC)
>Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen....@halder.edu> wrote:
>
>> Everyone who works with this stuff knows EXACTLY what we mean when we
>> colloquially say, for example, our signal strength is 55 decibels.
>
>One supposes, then, that for you, a signal strength of 5.5 'decibels'
>would be ten times less, too.
>

Just for fun: I've often wondered why we don't use the bel, at least
when the ratio in question is a number of dB that ends in a zero.

If a signal is _extremely_ attenuated, it's had eight bels knocked out
of it (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The motto of the Royal Society is: 'Take nobody's word for it'. Scepticism has
value. - Brian Cox, RT 2015/3/14-20

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 6:18:57 PM10/13/19

to

In message <qnvrp6$utr$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid>
writes:
[]

>designer would be interested in. The "behavior" of the elements
>has been assigned names, but you don't buy "a pound of directors".
>All the elements are just hollow rods of metal, cut to
>specific lengths suited to the lambda of the transmitting
>frequency. When you study antennas in 4NEC2, after a while

[]
No need for them to be hollow; in fact, that makes the maths more
complicated, though can usually be ignored.

Rene Lamontagne

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 6:39:37 PM10/13/19

to

On 2019-10-13 5:18 p.m., J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <qnvrp6$utr$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid>
> writes:
> []
>> designer would be interested in. The "behavior" of the elements
>> has been assigned names, but you don't buy "a pound of directors".
>> All the elements are just hollow rods of metal, cut to
>> specific lengths suited to the lambda of the transmitting
>> frequency. When you study antennas in 4NEC2, after a while
> []
> No need for them to be hollow; in fact, that makes the maths more
> complicated, though can usually be ignored.

Weight factor, a 12 element yagi with corner reflector would be an
overload for an antennae rotator.

Rene

Ken Hart

unread,

Oct 13, 2019, 9:01:00 PM10/13/19

to

On 10/13/19 6:14 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <20191013144344.5b7ebf96@WizardsTower>, Cybe R. Wizard
> <cybe_r...@WizardsTower.invalid> writes:
>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 16:03:07 -0000 (UTC)
>> Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen....@halder.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Everyone who works with this stuff knows EXACTLY what we mean when we
>>> colloquially say, for example, our signal strength is 55 decibels.
>>
>> One supposes, then, that for you, a signal strength of 5.5 'decibels'
>> would be ten times less, too.
>>
> Just for fun: I've often wondered why we don't use the bel, at least
> when the ratio in question is a number of dB that ends in a zero.
>
> If a signal is _extremely_ attenuated, it's had eight bels knocked out
> of it (-:

It is valid to use "Bel" without the "deci" in front of it, but I can't
think of any instance when I've seen it. Except when someone asks the
question why we don't use just the Bel (or Bell, as in Alex Graham, it's
namesake).

The google answer is that Bel would be inconveniently large. The decibel
was used extensively in the telephone system, especially in long lines
systems rented for audio performances. The calculations are easier in
1/10 Bels, or decibels.

--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 12:43:08 AM10/14/19

to

It is also that 1 dB is the just barely discernable change in intensity
to the ear. It is in general silly to write ratios with more accuracy
than 1dB, even though 3.15279984596 dB is perfectly well defined
mathematically. were you to write 2.7Bel instead of 27dB you would be
temped to write physical nonsense like 2.795 Bel.
>
>

William Unruh

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 12:56:35 AM10/14/19

to

On 2019-10-13, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <qnvrp6$utr$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid>
> writes:
> []
>>designer would be interested in. The "behavior" of the elements
>>has been assigned names, but you don't buy "a pound of directors".
>>All the elements are just hollow rods of metal, cut to
>>specific lengths suited to the lambda of the transmitting
>>frequency. When you study antennas in 4NEC2, after a while
> []
> No need for them to be hollow; in fact, that makes the maths more
> complicated, though can usually be ignored.

With the few-micron skin depth of Al or Cu at MHz freq for example, the only
conductivity in the antenna is in a very thin layer, so why would you make
the antenna way heavier and more expensive by making it solid? At 60Hz
you might want to use a solid rod (why?) but at even 1KHz it would be
silly if the diameter is order a cm.

Ie, all antenna rods are electrically hollow.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 1:41:07 AM10/14/19

to

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 04:37:25 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh wrote:

> Unfair. He has clearly stated that 10 dB is ten times the power, 20dB is
> 100 times the power. Also his use of the term "antenna" (his quotes)
> clearly meant the physical radiator and its accompanying electronics

Intelligent conversation ... for adults only.

Once the trolls plop their steaming pile of shit on the picnic
o As their fifth-grade contribution to the Usenet potluck
The gnats swarm around the thread - such that we adults must flee.

This isn't my first rodeo with fifth-grade trolls such as Cybe(r) Wizard,
Dan Purgett, Char Jackson, Rene Lamontagne, Lewis, Lloyd Parsons (aka
Elfin), Ken Hart, & nospam (although it was my first with Lucifer).

All of them prove me correct - every single time they post their drivel.

While I thank William Unruh for his logic, whom, I'm sure, given his
physics background, understood everything technical said in this thread
(and more)... (e.g., decibels, dbi, dbm, minus, antenna, ethernet, wi-fi,
etc.), clearly none of which do the trolls even begin to understand...

I must point out for the adults that which adults should take note of:
1. The trolls who now infest the thread are EXACTLY the list I provided!
2. All attacked an imaginary strawman (which they created, themselves)
3. Not one of them added even a single iota of on-topic technical value.

That last item is most crucial for adults on this ng to ponder.

The sad fact is those trolls who now infest this thread have never once in
their entire lives been able to add on-topic technical value.

They proved me right - and, sadly, they ALWAYS prove me right.
o That's because it's a fact that they insist on proving me right.

And there's nothing any adult can do to stop them.
o They insist on their right to ruin any thread that has technical value.

Just watch.

Cybe R. Wizard

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 2:01:18 AM10/14/19

to

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

We can accurately and formally refer to it as a stapler anywhere and
at any time.

What we can't do it colloquially refer to it as a pusher or an anvil.

It's one unit. One without the other - is worthless.

Go try to buy a carrier for a stapler.

Can't.

OTOH, go try to buy an antenna. Easy.

Idiot. Consult a shrink.

--
Cybe R. Wizard

"Your argument is sound. Nothing but sound."
Ben (Jammin') Franklin

William Unruh

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 9:54:22 AM10/14/19

to

On 2019-10-14, Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen....@halder.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 04:37:25 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh wrote:
>
>> Unfair. He has clearly stated that 10 dB is ten times the power, 20dB is
>> 100 times the power. Also his use of the term "antenna" (his quotes)
>> clearly meant the physical radiator and its accompanying electronics
>
> Intelligent conversation ... for adults only.
>
> Once the trolls plop their steaming pile of shit on the picnic
> o As their fifth-grade contribution to the Usenet potluck
> The gnats swarm around the thread - such that we adults must flee.

I am afraid that you also come across as a troll. Your posts are replete
with personal attacks, are incredibly prolix not least because you
insist on making your points three or more times in the same post.
You not respond personally (see below) even if you feel you are
provoked. It really makes you seem a troll. And trim your penchant for
hyperbole.

>
> This isn't my first rodeo with fifth-grade trolls such as Cybe(r) Wizard,
> Dan Purgett, Char Jackson, Rene Lamontagne, Lewis, Lloyd Parsons (aka
> Elfin), Ken Hart, & nospam (although it was my first with Lucifer).
>
> All of them prove me correct - every single time they post their drivel.
>
> While I thank William Unruh for his logic, whom, I'm sure, given his
> physics background, understood everything technical said in this thread
> (and more)... (e.g., decibels, dbi, dbm, minus, antenna, ethernet, wi-fi,
> etc.), clearly none of which do the trolls even begin to understand...
>
> I must point out for the adults that which adults should take note of:
> 1. The trolls who now infest the thread are EXACTLY the list I provided!
> 2. All attacked an imaginary strawman (which they created, themselves)
> 3. Not one of them added even a single iota of on-topic technical value.

Nor does this post.

>
> That last item is most crucial for adults on this ng to ponder.
>
> The sad fact is those trolls who now infest this thread have never once in
> their entire lives been able to add on-topic technical value.

Untrue. Cyber for one has often (usually) added on-topic technical value. Unfortunately
you seem to be like a red cape to a bull for him.

>
> They proved me right - and, sadly, they ALWAYS prove me right.
> o That's because it's a fact that they insist on proving me right.

And you are proving them right.

>
> And there's nothing any adult can do to stop them.
> o They insist on their right to ruin any thread that has technical value.

As do you.

>
> Just watch.

William Unruh

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 10:08:35 AM10/14/19

to

On 2019-10-14, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
> Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
>
>> To further clarify what others have been also clarifying, I snapped this
>> picture, just now, which shows two ways to connect an 'antenna' to the back
>> of a typical desktop computer (aka "Ethernet" & "Wi-Fi"):
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/Gh22Sb2N/desktop.jpg>
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/rmz7bp9c/desktop2.jpg
>
> Let's be crystal clear.
>
> You are *not* connecting an "antenna" to an RJ45 connector.
>
> The Antenna is a "parabolic section" item in the upper right of your image.

Oh come off it. While and antenna may well be the physical transducer of
of electrical current to EM radiation, it can also be, in accepted English
useage the whole system which includes the driver, if the physical
antenna and the driver are a single unit.

Actually,no. They for example often include the amplifier as well
(every one on the first page of what I got when I entered "antenna" into
amazon.com)

Do you have problems if someone says "I've got my wheels outside" when
he means "I've got my automobile outside"? Having the name of a part as a name for
the whole is well accepted English useage, especially when there is no
well known name for the whole.

Cybe R. Wizard

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 10:13:18 AM10/14/19

to

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 13:54:20 -0000 (UTC)
William Unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:

> Cyber for one has often (usually) added on-topic technical value.
> Unfortunately you seem to be like a red cape to a bull for him.

To my limited ability, but thanks for that.

(Oh, BTW, its, "Cybe." That, "R," is a middle name initial (stands for,
"Rusty.").)

I only see red when he posts my name. That is ALL (every little bit) on
him.

I've often told him that, if he only fails in doing so, he will never
hear from me again. I guess you can see how well that works out.

--
Cybe R. Wizard

"I have likely written over ten thousand tutorials, where at my last
company, I wrote over five thousand alone."
Arlen G Holder
Message-ID: <po4626$vpu$1...@news.mixmin.net>

Unsteadyken

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 11:45:58 AM10/14/19

to

In article <qo1ikd$8no$1...@news.mixmin.net>,

Arlen _G_ Holder says...

> I think all of you playing your silly games, have no concept of the fact
> that the radio is ALWAYS attached DIRECTLY to the antenna. Always.
>

Here is a picture of a radio I have used.

http://www.wftw.nl/d11l.jpg
Perhaps you would care to point out the directly attached anntenna.

And a vaguely computer related way...

Here is an early form of wifi adaptor, the use of which enables the
tansmission and reception of digital data.

http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/bid150.html
It cannot be plugged into an ethernet port.

--
Ken

Rene Lamontagne

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 12:00:39 PM10/14/19

to

Here is another antenna Which will *not* be hooked up to a *Radio*

https://www.amazon.ca/RCA-ANT751R-Outdoor-Optimized-Reception/dp/B0024R4B5C/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=yagi+antennas&qid=1571068622&sr=8-4

Rene

Dan Purgert

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 12:03:02 PM10/14/19

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Unsteadyken wrote:
> In article <qo1ikd$8no$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
>
> Arlen _G_ Holder says...
>
>> I think all of you playing your silly games, have no concept of the fact
>> that the radio is ALWAYS attached DIRECTLY to the antenna. Always.
>>
>
> Here is a picture of a radio I have used.
>
> http://www.wftw.nl/d11l.jpg
> Perhaps you would care to point out the directly attached anntenna.

It's right there in the upper center, where some mook looped that cable
around the meter.

Granted that might not be the "antenna" you were looking for. :)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl2knDEACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooHTRQf/QwYc+nLbFjzclGkzDSToXjk3uraBgLKAN+US5J/pG2p2robdsKkEvDcC
K4rH1q1mQb6o9eecqFp7afwH5/jEyg3D9nSbQFjtZJevWWXdUJhnt/aX4aAhamUZ
vqbP3yL95BZPuTgDV3iTfs0g5mhhHxLeaALHvnmx9bqQGttoJ6Ym1GWpXhDuzxAd
dqToVQIFOA8AEO19cdxFOYJmNjVCySy40dcU7jLdyfMRkvkj3x8jJ1zf6lB87h73
ifJ84TagfAZyHPSVOPUvS/q2/+ClV6FOVgJLtrXQst2kgNWSn2kOHw54KnNWkP+L
qWLNl0oQgwK44RkEWY6Qfusm0xyIBA==
=dSz1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 12:04:49 PM10/14/19

to

In message <qo0v61$3gi$3...@dont-email.me>, William Unruh

It's strength versus weight. I've seen plenty of, for example, TV Yagis
where the elements (or most of them - certainly the directors) are just
stamped out of sheet metal; and for indoor set-top ones (which are
usually designed for appearance more than performance anyway - I've
never seen one give an indication what "group" it is) where they're thin
solid brass (or brass-look) rods. (This latter, at least partly, so that
when the cat knocks them off the shelf, they don't buckle immediately.)

[Group: in UK, TV transmitters in any one region were together in one
part of the UHF band, so (outdoor) aerials were optimised for that part
- known as group A, group B, and so on. There was a convention for the
plastic plug at one or both ends of the (square) support beam to be of a
colour that indicated the group the aerial was optimised for. As more
and more of the UHF band gets sold off to the rapacious mobile data
industry, this is becoming less relevant (we originally had something
like 450-870 MHz for TV, but it's down to about half that so far now).]

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Don't play "stupid" with me... I'm better at it.

Paul

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 12:43:52 PM10/14/19

to

Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 03:28:03 -0400, Paul wrote:
>
>> If you went to Amazon and entered "Antenna", the item offered
>> for purchase would be the object in the upper right hand
>> corner of the photo.
>
> Paul,
>
> Play your silly games.
>
> I think all of you playing your silly games, have no concept of the fact
> that the radio is ALWAYS attached DIRECTLY to the antenna. Always.
>

How do you know that ?

How do you know there isn't another modular
assembly with coaxial output, that doesn't connect
to the RF input on the modem/router ?

The secrets to life are:

1) Never assume anything. Check.

Never assume that when an elevator door opens,
there's an elevator car behind it. Every time the
door opens, "be prepared to be surprised".

2) Use the same names for things other people use.
Even in engineering, this is something we practice
every day. If a term is invented, we take the time
to narrow the definition. This means, when we're later
in a hurry, no time is lost because someone in the
group decided to go off on a tangent. If I say
"orthogonalizer" in a meeting, I don't need to explain
it, because we have a defined meaning for the item.
You don't get the term in a university class.

When an item has a connector on it, that offers the
opportunity for modular interconnect. I could connect
an RF simulator to the input. I could connect an
attenuator and do receive sensitivity. For example, on
USB, I could connect an instrument that collects
USB packets for future examination (to verify the
protocol and packet formats are correct, or use
the instrument to determine the item is defective
in some way). Just because a USB stick has a USB
connector, and so does the computer, that's not the
only place it can be plugged. It's modular, and you
can daisy chain any number of intermediate items
(a "hub"), to achieve a desired end. We give the USB key
or USB flash stick a name. We give the hub a name.

If I'm writing the user manual for the item, each
disconnect-able part has a name (and a part number
on the Bill Of Materials). By using proper names
for things, there is never any confusion.

When we needed to connect a floppy drive to a computer
in a special way, the designer ended up with *two*
controller boards to do the job. A regular person
would assume "the same old ribbon cable goes to the
same old place, and it would never be anything else".
Such a person making that assumption would be wrong.
The designer picking the items (basically a "shopping
in the catalog" exercise), looked for modular
controller boards with the right inputs and outputs.
He succeeded. And every other engineer who looked
at the contraption was going "Wha?...". And that's
because the bits and pieces were modular. And the result,
was one of the few asynchronous 8" floppy drives (you
could write to it, and continue working in your
document editor at the same time - it didn't freeze
up the computer when in usage).

No matter who you are, thinking modular and knowing
how stuff works, allows you to find new uses for
things. For example, just knowing 110V and 220V
"aren't compatible", if you traveled to a foreign country,
you would expend extra attention on "power details".
Unlike living in your own country and simply assuming
"everything with a plug can be plugged into a wall".
You need to know enough about product labeling
and device operation, to know which devices "might"
adapt to 220V, which ones "could never" adapt, which
ones could be "expensive to adapt" (variac), and so on.

Think modular.

Use proper names.

If you use the proper names, and you ask a question
of someone who "thinks modular", you will be rewarded
with useful answers more often. Rather than spend 78 posts
in endless arguments.

Paul

~BD~

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 12:58:26 PM10/14/19

to

On 14/10/2019 17:43, Paul stated something so very, very, true!
> One of the secrets to life is:

> *Never assume anything. Check*.

That has been *MY* 'watch-phrase' for all of my adult life.

>    Never assume that when an elevator door opens,
>    there's an elevator car behind it. Every time the
>    door opens, "be prepared to be surprised".

Absolutely right, Paul! :-D

--
David B.
Devon, UK

Cybe R. Wizard

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 1:05:05 PM10/14/19

to

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:43:45 -0400
Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:

> Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 03:28:03 -0400, Paul wrote:
> >
> >> If you went to Amazon and entered "Antenna", the item offered
> >> for purchase would be the object in the upper right hand
> >> corner of the photo.
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > Play your silly games.
> >
> > I think all of you playing your silly games, have no concept of the
> > fact that the radio is ALWAYS attached DIRECTLY to the antenna.
> > Always.
>
> How do you know that ?
>
> How do you know there isn't another modular
> assembly with coaxial output, that doesn't connect
> to the RF input on the modem/router ?
>
> The secrets to life are:
>
> 1) Never assume anything. Check.
>
> Never assume that when an elevator door opens,
> there's an elevator car behind it. Every time the
> door opens, "be prepared to be surprised".
>
> 2) Use the same names for things other people use.

[...]

>
> If I'm writing the user manual for the item, each
> disconnect-able part has a name (and a part number
> on the Bill Of Materials). By using proper names
> for things, there is never any confusion.

[...]

>
> Think modular.
>
> Use proper names.
>
> If you use the proper names, and you ask a question
> of someone who "thinks modular", you will be rewarded
> with useful answers more often. Rather than spend 78 posts
> in endless arguments.
>
> Paul

That's all wonderful advice and just the things that one would expect to
already be understood by someone who had written TEN THOUSAND tutorials.

--
Cybe R. Wizard

Son of a bitch must pay!
Jack Burton, "Big Trouble In Little China"

Unsteadyken

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 1:08:31 PM10/14/19

to

In article <slrnqq971...@djph.net>,

Dan Purgert says...

> It's right there in the upper center, where some mook looped that cable
> around the meter.
>
> Granted that might not be the "antenna" you were looking for. :)
>

Definitely not.
Insects have antennas.
Radios do not.

The meter indicates the SWR of the transmit aerial

The box below it is the AMU = Aerial matching unit for transmit.

The gizmo top left is the ATU = Aerial tuning unit for the receiver.

I cannot remember anybody in the UK ever referring to an aerial as an
antenna.

Daft Yanks, if only they had had the foresight to take a dictionary on
the Mayflower.

--
Ken

Dan Purgert

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 1:09:15 PM10/14/19

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Paul wrote:
> [...]

> How do you know there isn't another modular
> assembly with coaxial output, that doesn't connect
> to the RF input on the modem/router ?

Like all my security cameras you mean?
Or that ancient Thinnet that's still in the walls at work?

> [...]

> 2) Use the same names for things other people use.
> Even in engineering, this is something we practice
> every day. If a term is invented, we take the time
> to narrow the definition. This means, when we're later
> in a hurry, no time is lost because someone in the
> group decided to go off on a tangent. If I say
> "orthogonalizer" in a meeting, I don't need to explain
> it, because we have a defined meaning for the item.
> You don't get the term in a university class.

Just so we're all on the same page, are we talking right-handed or
left-handed orthogonalizers? Also, would their "colloquial term" be
hinges? :D

Slightly less tongue-in-cheek, the "Thagomizer" is another good example
of an invented term that took off.

> [...] Just because a USB stick has a USB

> connector, and so does the computer, that's not the
> only place it can be plugged.

Well, it's not like I'm gonna be plugging a USB device into a DE-9
connector any time soon... at least not without an adapter of some sort.

>It's modular, and you
> can daisy chain any number of intermediate items
> (a "hub"), to achieve a desired end. We give the USB key
> or USB flash stick a name. We give the hub a name.

I thought there was a limit of like 96 or so devices on a given USB
interface? Or has that changed since the USB 1.0 days? I've never
needed more than about 4 or 5 devices total, so I never really kept up
with it.

> [...]

> If I'm writing the user manual for the item, each
> disconnect-able part has a name (and a part number
> on the Bill Of Materials). By using proper names
> for things, there is never any confusion.

And probably a manufacturer part number as well because why would we
ever admit that our "HP Wifi Module" is just an Intel 2560 with a
special firmware so if it dies, our customer can't just replace it with
a bog-standard Intel card.

On the upside, HP has permanently removed themselves from "contenders"
when I'm looking for a new non-desktop machine.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl2kq7YACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFWDQf/VYZWyJxCYFBLNFxjutKwPxOP3MuzsQvz/wg587ylcn4qHxxjHC8nS4vM
FjDlpDdfcDn2S64Giqi0NvfWcQf5lP28YYIIASDG9iD4wwalnFOVYzpZv0r2CwUa
zS51jbsEEOG0Y/xgidCfS8ZPcBG59zgI4PwmSuZk241zynmdRorEHI2fqFquFRrE
wNF1zeogqf89CpA4t5YGFhXJzkfVhh6ykk5DcB2Uxqv00WgpaiVaE/q1I8VX6uRT
Ye/Cv4L4HjBnYkWVzwg1g/sRdHF2XCgCjIosSTDfww7PvCHr8D1++nOE89re09Oe
lP4K+9yPibs+7QlFXEibcoVSDzDWvw==
=3zUP

Dan Purgert

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 1:21:51 PM10/14/19

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Unsteadyken wrote:

> In article <slrnqq971...@djph.net>,
>
> Dan Purgert says...
>
>> It's right there in the upper center, where some mook looped that cable
>> around the meter.
>>
>> Granted that might not be the "antenna" you were looking for. :)
>>
> Definitely not.
> Insects have antennas.
> Radios do not.

> [...]

>
> Daft Yanks, if only they had had the foresight to take a dictionary on
> the Mayflower.

Hmm, unfortunately, I cannot find a reference to which term was coined
first. However, according to google books' ngram viewer, "aerial" peaked
in 1945 with 0.00087% of word usage in their texts, whereas "antenna"
peaked in 1949, with 0.00083% of word usage.

Uh, assuming I'm using this ngram viewer right.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl2krqwACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooEKfAf+JUN3603f2i49rRIFRgP6K1TZ6xMF+wJlkG+1oOSoaqyJS7W644icB2kZ
mdQ09BnJF2x/vLImXvEdTrwsYUcIeIy+3YjOtV03IIjRXnNmeZz6DU3PRiybwOHJ
V4IlbyNYZv8QgIAwRn5mHrFAPD7m1enjwbnhhNPAHDuWgcYkAM8+bUOixjIPQuP6
NdNP4tNPTLObGMasL+qIKOBWUboNwJmbN4Ku6f9v9JIleBzN2omZUsR8ia7P8YiX
ME2K/H9lhoC+ePcspTQ3dnQFc4kdRwYK6Cr19QPSsxicALXe3OXzmnXItHDzHDVA
Ra9sN3X8epnXnudsd11TQKOzcpcJ8w==
=hb2f

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 1:31:49 PM10/14/19

to

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 13:54:20 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh wrote:

> I am afraid that you also come across as a troll. Your posts are replete
> with personal attacks, are incredibly prolix not least because you
> insist on making your points three or more times in the same post.
> You not respond personally (see below) even if you feel you are
> provoked. It really makes you seem a troll. And trim your penchant for
> hyperbole.

Hi William Unruh,

This is long, as it's important ... because it deals with the fundamentals
o Of how to handle trolls who insist on infesting Usenet potlucks

Bear in mind:
o What you're really advising me about - is how to handle the trolls.

Also notice the FACTS:
o I stopped responding to the trolls - and they took over.

Which is the real strategic problem:
o If you don't confront the trolls
o They turn every Q&A/FAQ post into worthless chitchat.

Worse...
o If you do confront the trolls
o They _still_ turn every Q&A/FAQ post into worthless chitchat.

Hence your comments are apropos as the problem is HOW to deal with trolls!

The problem you speak about isn't "me" - it's how to respond to trolls?
o You may recall, I consider trolls cowardly bullies

Where I teach, we're taught to confront the cowardly bullies
o The other option, is colloquially called "don't feed the trolls".

Notice something William, which is critically important:
o What you call "personal attacks" is me pointing to what the trolls post.

I repeat (for emphasis), what you see as "personal attacks", is responses
attempting to stamp out the infestation we can refer to as the "trolls".

Do very much realize this fact, William:
o What you "see" as attacks - is "responding" to the trolls themselves.

Bear in mind, and notice this BEFORE you respond:
o I do NOT "feed the trolls" in threads that I don't care about.

You must notice this fact that I only respond to the trolls...
o In threads where I care to come to fruition in adding technical value

You must also notice this fact about those responses to the trolls
o It's always to point out what the trolls, themselves, write.

While I understand WHY you see that as a "personal attack"
o You, of all people, can comprehend - there is no other response possible

Other than to ignore them - which I do - in threads I don't care about.

Hence, the problem you outline isn't me
o The problem is how to deal with the listed known set of trolls
o When trolls have infested a thread you care about coming to fruition.

>> 3. Not one of them added even a single iota of on-topic technical value.
>
> Nor does this post.

Agreed William, where you'll note _zero_ posts to the named trolls
o After the time point that I said I would not "feed the trolls"

Notice something else, perhaps quite unique, William:
1. I post with purposefully helpful intent
2. I use a strategy & tactic on the trolls

On the intent, you must admit I have so many helpful tutorials posted, that
we've lost count on the numbers (Cybe(r) Wizard always tries to childishly
pin me down on exactly how many thousands there are, over the decades, in
fact, when I had included many white papers written at my last workplace in
an off-the-cuff comment).

Do I need to provide examples of these helpful tutorials, William?
o Ask each of the trolls how many tutorials _they_ have posted, William.

The strategy I use to "handle" trolls is what you're actually referring to:

My strategy, you could argue, is relatively rare, on Usenet.
o At the risk of cluing in the trolls, I will outline my strategy
(Although I've outlined this many times - so it's not a new concept.)

ASSUMPTIONS:
o Once the trolls have infested a thread, it's ruined already.
o The only hope we have is to prevent them trolling the _next_ thread.

STRATEGY:
o Ignore the trolls in threads where I don't care about fruition
o Confront the trolls in threads where I do care about fruition

TACTICS:
o Trolls can troll any thread I don't care about: I ignore them there.
o It's only when trolls infest a thread I care about - that I react.

How do I confront the trolls, William?
o I point to what THEY write.

Notice you consider that a "personal attack"
o Where, in reality, it's simply pointing to what the trolls wrote.

I do agree with you, fully and completely, that...
o Responding to the trolls is irksome for adults to have to deal with

But notice that there would be zero response necessary, if the listed
trolls didn't troll.

The problem you outline isn't me
o The problem is how to deal with the listed known set of trolls
o When trolls have infested a thread you care about coming to fruition.

> Untrue. Cyber for one has often (usually) added on-topic technical value. Unfortunately
> you seem to be like a red cape to a bull for him.

Hi William Unruh,

All I need to do, William Unruh, is point to any post by Cybe(r) Wizard you
can find, in this thread, that added even a single iota of on-topic value.

I always ask people who own imaginary belief systems this simple question:
o Name just one.

NOTE: I ask myself the same question, where if you wish, I will point to
posts in this thread where I have added on-topic technical value, as the
rules apply to everyone.

Remember, William, I point to exactly what the trolls themselves post.
o You consider that a personal attack on the trolls

I consider it the adult thing to do.

Hence, if you feel Cybe(r) Wizard added value in this thread
o Simply point to the post in this thread where he added that value.

Name just one.

>> They proved me right - and, sadly, they ALWAYS prove me right.
>> o That's because it's a fact that they insist on proving me right.
>
> And you are proving them right.

William,

What you're trying to advise me about, which I appreciate
o Is how to handle a thread you care about
o When the trolls have infested it

It's not an easy problem, William.
o It's just not.

What I do, which is clear that I do it, is:
a. In threads I don't care about, I ignore the trolls.
b. In threads I care about, I point to what the trolls themselves post.

You consider pointing out what they post to be a "personal attack".

I understand just as when people post good information I "thank them".
o You'd consider that a "personal congratulation".

You have to realize what you're advising me about
o Is how to handle the common trolls who are listed in this thread

It's not an easy problem to handle William.
o What I do is ignore those trolls in threads I don't care about.
o I point to what they write, in threads I do care about.

I fully well am aware why you consider that a "personal attack"
o Just as when I thank people, you'd consider it a "personal thanks".

>> And there's nothing any adult can do to stop them.
>> o They insist on their right to ruin any thread that has technical value.
>
> As do you.

In summary, William, the problem you're trying to advise me on
o Is how to deal with the listed trolls - in threads we care about.

Bear in mind, there are (at least) two fundamental Usenet use models
o Chit chat
o Q&A/FAQ

In general, we can characterize those two models something like this:
o chitchat: What you post is nearly meaningless as you post for amusement.
o q&a/faq: What you post is meaningful as you post for added value.

Obviously I don't use the chitchat model on Usenet.
o I'm here for a single thread, and then I'm gone
o Until the next thread comes up that I care about
o Where I focus on added technical value

Just as obviously, the trolls thrive on the chitchat model on Usenet
o They're here for every thread that they can possibly post to
o They do not care about adding any on-topic technical value

The problem you speak of occurs when the trolls infest a Q&A thread.
o Their chitchat model of worthless drivel - adds nothing of value
o My attempt to drive off the trolls - also adds nothing of value

However, if you leave the trolls alone - they will convert any Q&A thread
that had any value, into their worthless chitchat that adds zero value.

How do we keep a Q&A/FAQ thread on track.... when the trolls infest it?
o The trolls insist on turning a Q&A thread into worthless chitchat.

When I point out what the trolls write, I'm accused of a personal attack.
o Haven't you noticed something, William?

Whether or not I exist, those listed trolls insist on their right to troll.
o Why don't you ask the trolls - to stop trolling?

--
I know why, William, and I do realize you did confront one of them.
The fact is that you can't reason with the trolls. I know this.
You know this. All you can do is point out exactly what they post.
You can do no more since they create the problem we're reacting to.

Paul

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 1:35:00 PM10/14/19

to

William Unruh wrote:

>
> Do you have problems if someone says "I've got my wheels outside" when
> he means "I've got my automobile outside"? Having the name of a part as a name for
> the whole is well accepted English useage, especially when there is no
> well known name for the whole.

Yes, I do have a problem with that.

Because there might actually be four car tires
on rims, sitting in my driveway.

Now, you're relying on pre-communicated context.

While most of the time, we can afford to be imprecise,
make jokes, clarify in a second conversation "what we meant",
that's a bad practice to get into, when on some
occasion it causes a safety issue.

As for the minutiae of antenna assembly designs (antenna
plus additional components), that's not the purpose of
this exercise. It's to inform the individual that mis-naming
things on purpose, *serves no purpose*. That's what the
lecture is about. It's a lecture about
*wasting our fucking time for nothing*.

It's OK to have a misconception, and by talking around it,
have a misconception clarified. It's quite another to
misname things for the sole purpose of confusing someone else.

Paul

Savageduck

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 1:45:19 PM10/14/19

to

On Oct 14, 2019, Paul wrote
(in article <qo28k0$eal$1...@dont-email.me>):

<<Snip>>

>
> The secrets to life are:
>
> 1) Never assume anything. Check.
>
> Never assume that when an elevator door opens,
> there's an elevator car behind it. Every time the
> door opens, "be prepared to be surprised".

That was a lesson delivered to Stirling Moss in 2010 when he stepped into the
elevator shaft on the 3rd floor while the elevator was stopped at the 4th
floor.
<http://www.sportscardigest.com/stirling-moss-accident/>

--
Regards,
Savageduck