Gavin

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 6:57:10 AM10/9/19

to

Wifi access point is off, I use ethernet.

Terry Coombs

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 7:39:59 AM10/9/19

to

My desktop isn't wireless ... but the comp hooked to the TV and the
one hooked to the stereo are , and the WiFi router sits on a shelf above
my desk . Right next to our DSL modem .

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !

Frank

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 7:45:57 AM10/9/19

to

Mine too. Where my machines are, catercorner on first floor to modem on
2nd floor I get about 3X speed with ethernet vs wifi.

Fox's Mercantile

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 9:03:44 AM10/9/19

to

Pay attention folks.
Our resident cesspool of useless discussions isn't talking about
your in the house WiFi modem.
He's talking about Wireless internet service.

Frank

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 9:22:18 AM10/9/19

to

On 10/9/2019 9:03 AM, Fox's Mercantile wrote:
> Pay attention folks.
> Our resident cesspool of useless discussions isn't talking about
> your in the house WiFi modem.
> He's talking about Wireless internet service.
>

Close enough. Perhaps once speeds reach wired, none will need wired.
But not me as towers are behind a hill where I live.
I involves the home and is an on topic topic.

Gary

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 10:36:07 AM10/9/19

to

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To answer the OP, I use a neighborhood wifi for insecure use.
Only get about 1/2 block away near my bedroom window.
Move out of the bedroom and connection is lost.

It's 54 Mbps optimum but normally connect speed goes down
to 1 Mbps.

For secure stuff, I still use dial-up.

Fox's Mercantile

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 11:04:53 AM10/9/19

to

On 10/9/19 9:36 AM, Gary wrote:
[ nothing of interest ]

Piss off Arlen.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 4:16:27 PM10/9/19

to

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 10:32:27 -0300, pjp wrote:

> All I really care about is download speed.

Hi pjp,

Thank you for your information, where it's nice to converse with someone
who has the same or similar WiFi experience as I have, which, we have to
admit, is different from the experience most people have.

For example, we control our modem settings to some extent, whereas, for
most people they likely can't even log in as the administrator, to check or
change a setting, or to upload firmware, or to change the frequency, or
transmit power, or whatever.

As for what you care about most, I agree that download speed is important,
although, for VOIP, jitter is also critical (particularly when it gets over
about 10 ms or so).

Our download speed is often about the same as our uploads - is yours that
way? Out here, most (but not all) the WISP advertises symmetric speeds but
often the upload can be half the download, but just as often, it's more.

Who knows why.

Out here in the mountains, a single tree can encroach into the Fresnel Zone
such that neighbors can have drastically different end results, using the
same equipment.

Interestingly, and sadly, just like with Windows, sometimes we have to
reboot our "modems" (yes, I know they're not modems, but most people
reading this won't know what a transceiver is, nor that it's, essentially,
a modem anyway) - just to get our speeds back.

Why?
o I don't know why.

Maybe someone here who knows more than I do can explain why my speeds jump
when I reboot the modem, where, it's kind of just like Windows, in that
way.
o Why does rebooting the modem instantly "fix" the slow speeds?

> 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.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 9, 2019, 6:50:04 PM10/9/19

unread,

Ed Pawlowski

unread,

Oct 12, 2019, 6:20:42 PM10/12/19

to

On 10/12/2019 5:16 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:03:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:
>
>> I think to a reasonable person, having Wi-Fi available at your home
>> means it's either available through a simple WiFi router connected
>> to cable, DSL, etc. Or it's available from a local WiFi hotspot
>> that reaches your house. Not that you need a friend somewhere and a
>> point-to-point relay in between.
>
> Hi trader,
>
> Why do you insist on proving you don't belong on this type of news group?
>
> As usual, you contributed nothing of any value to this Usenet potluck
> (where the last time you did that, it went sort of like this):
>

> Stop wasting our time with your childish games you love to play.
> o If you can't add any technical value to this thread - then don't post.
>

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

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 12, 2019, 6:43:04 PM10/12/19

to

On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 18:20:40 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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

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

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

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

Which depends on what you're doing with it.

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

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

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

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

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

--
Sharing purposefully helpful ideas on Usenet; one idea at a time.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 10:34:27 PM10/14/19

to

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 02:03:13 -0000 (UTC), Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

> PS: You were close enough on the imedence match.

Yikes. In addition to the "dBi" and "dBm" thinkos...
<https://i.postimg.cc/DZccY2YD/decibels.jpg>

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

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

As I noted with tires, those who quibble about the colloquial use of
something as common as decibels would never get to the more important
points, such as where we discuss in a tutorial how to mount the red dot
<https://i.postimg.cc/Pqq6GGj6/mount09.jpg>
versus what's different when we choose how to mount the yellow dot:
<<https://i.postimg.cc/4yxSFpSp/mount57.jpg>

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

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

Having said that, almost always, the Wi-Fi radios we're talking about are
mounted directly to the antenna (just as SUV tires are mounted directly to
the wheels), there are cases when the Wi-Fi radio is simply "close" to the
antenna, as shown in this box I built myself a few years ago out of spare
parts:
<https://i.postimg.cc/DfQJq437/mikrotikrouter.jpg>

In that case, the radio is "close" to the antenna, as shown in this picture
which shows that the old desktop can be placed hundreds of feet from the
house in the barn, and it will still connect either to the access points
scattered about the property...
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gh22Sb2N/desktop.jpg>
Or, if needed, it can connect to access points literally miles away.
<https://i.postimg.cc/VvqLKQtQ/wifi.jpg>

--
The intelligent adult will note the worthless trolls are being ignored.
(and yet, they still troll ... which is all they _can_ do ... it seems.)

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 11:55:48 PM10/14/19

to

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:44:29 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:

> Uh.. Yeah.. Your "desktop" isn't connecting to jack squat.

Hi Johann Beretta,

Here's a shot of the barn desktop which shows that setup better:
<https://i.postimg.cc/6QJqK6Cj/desktop02.jpg>

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

And yet, it's connected by WiFi using this Mikrotik equipment:
<https://i.postimg.cc/yx4CgWYt/mikrotik-router-config.jpg>

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

> When someone says "my desktop is connected to" the implication is that
> you're connecting to something using the built-in wifi of the laptop.

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

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

My desktop, at this very moment, doesn't even have built-in Wi-Fi, but it
does have built-in Ethernet (and yes, I'm using that term colloquially).
<https://i.postimg.cc/6QJqK6Cj/desktop02.jpg>

This is a shot of the radio configuration that Ethernet is tied to:
<https://i.postimg.cc/DfQJq437/mikrotikrouter.jpg>

The CAT5 out of the desktop connects to a $50 Mikrotik routerboard
<https://mikrotik.com/product/RB411>
o 300MHz CPU, 32MB RAM, 1xEthernet, miniPCI, serial port, RouterOS L3

With a 23dBm $50 card plugged into the routerboard's miniPCI slot
<https://mikrotik.com/product/R52NM>
o 2.4/5Ghz miniPCI 802.11a/b/g/n dual chain, 2x MMCX

Whose output is attached to a 15dBi $40 2.4GHz wiregrid antenna:
<https://www.streakwave.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=GD24-15-NM>

Where the signal strength, at this very moment, is about
-40dBm with a Tx/Rx CCQ of about 80%, S/N of about 75dB.
<https://i.postimg.cc/yx4CgWYt/mikrotik-router-config.jpg>

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

> Needless to say, there's no way you'd be making a 6 mile link at 144mbps
> with the 30mw (average) laptop transmitter. You'd also need 20-30 feet
> of elevation to keep the transmitter's Fresnel zones clear.

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

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

--
You seem to have technical value to add; please add it so all benefit.

Fox's Mercantile

unread,

Oct 14, 2019, 11:58:51 PM10/14/19

to

On 10/14/19 9:34 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> Note the main reason for having to correct the typos is that those silly
> little girls on this newsgroup who have nothing to add, will endlessly
> quibble about the typos

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

Ed Pawlowski

unread,

Oct 15, 2019, 12:03:21 AM10/15/19

to

On 10/14/2019 11:55 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

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

Very fitting. You like to look down on people.

%

unread,

Oct 15, 2019, 12:29:49 AM10/15/19

to

i thought he looked like a fake tit

Jeff Liebermann

unread,

Oct 15, 2019, 2:50:09 AM10/15/19

to

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:44:29 -0700, Johann Beretta
<ber...@nun-ya-bizness.com> wrote:
>When someone says "my desktop is connected to" the implication is that
>you're connecting to something using the built-in wifi of the laptop.

>Needless to say, there's no way you'd be making a 6 mile link at 144mbps
> with the 30mw (average) laptop transmitter. You'd also need 20-30 feet
>of elevation to keep the transmitter's Fresnel zones clear.

More like 46 to 57 feet antenna elevation for 80-100% Fresnel zone
clearance. Plug in 6 miles for the distance and 2.4 GHz for the
frequency:
<https://www.proxim.com/en/products/knowledge-center/calculations/calculations-fresnel-clearance-zone>
That also applies to objects along the line of sight, such as trees,
hills, buildings, towers, phone poles, and other obstructions.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 15, 2019, 12:09:06 PM10/15/19

to

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 02:28:27 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:
> It doesn't do someone following the post any favors to let
> incorrect terms slip by.

Hi Johann Beretta,

Johann, let's be realistic since we must assume "adults" live here.
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-home-repair>
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-internet-wireless>
<http://tinyurl.com/sci-electronics-repair>

Let's take advantage of your skills to FURTHER our capabilities!
o What would you suggest for a home computer to extend the wifi range?

Let's assume you only want to go another hundred yards (meters) or so.
o Or, maybe, you want the computer to connect to an AP only a mile away

What would you suggest to extend the Wi-Fi range of, oh, a typical desktop
or laptop, to a hundred meters (or to a mile, kilometer) further from where
it is currently maxing out?

Using your knowledge and intellect, Johann, what can you offer the team, by
way of ADDED ADULT TECHNICAL VALUE that furthers their ability to connect
to access points that they can't currently connect to, today?

If I'm using "decibels", and if someone on those three ngs doesn't know
what they mean, and if they're older than, oh, say, fifth grade, then there
is no hope for them anyway.

Seriously.
o What are they doing posting their drivel about decibels on those ngs, if
they're that ignorant of even the most basic of electronic terms.

They should just shut up if
(a) they don't care to have this kind of power at home
(b) they're so ignorant that the only thing they can find are typos
(c) all they do (endlessly, day in and day out), is troll
etc.

If they quibble about a misplaced "i" versus the "m", there's no hope for
them to ever add any adult value to any topic on this newsgroup, Johann.

Seriously.
o Only a moron would be confused by "decibel" in place of "dBm" or "dBi".

It's like quibbling over "yards" and "meters" when it doesn't matter.

A moron can't possibly add value
o And certainly not by playing silly games around "radio" or "decibel".

You do NOT seem to be a moron - so why don't you use your intellect to ADD
VALUE to the conversation, so that OTHERS can do what you and I can do.

What can we do, Johann?
o We can connect WiFi to access points that are much farther away
o With that, we can connect Ethernet to those distant access points
o For about the costs as people are paying today
o If they just knew how.

Specifically:
o If they knew what the potential distances might be (if they need them)
o And, if they knew what equipment to buy to get those distances
o Where this equipment is not likely to be found in local box stores.

I consider that knowledge good added value.
o If you don't consider that knowledge added value, then say so.

But please don't play childish games around typos & common terms.

> It's not quibbling to point out stuff that's patently incorrect.

I repeat that you seem to be the only one here who knows anything,
so I just want to ask you to ADD ON-TOPIC ADULT VALUE where you can.

If you find a "real" mistake, then, by all means, state your claim.
o I'm not afraid of facts because facts form the basis of my beliefs

However, don't play silly childish games around the use of the word "radio"
or "decibel" or "antenna" or "aerial", etc., since everyone KNOWS what we
mean when we talk colloquially about this stuff.

If they don't know, then they're simply too ignorant to educate anyway.
o I ask those morons to stop wasting our time on childish semantic drivel

Bear in mind I set up WISP, along with my neighbors, for about 100 homes,
where, trust me, here in the mountains above Silicon Valley, we're _all_
extremely well educated ... and where the fact is, NOBODY plays silly games
around decibels and the like. We don't even say the "negative", since we
KNOW that it's always going to be negative for example.

Only here, on Usenet, filled to the brim with poorly educated children, do
they incessantly quibble about silly stupid semantic games (including
thinkos and typos like accidentally switching the 'i' and 'm', when it
doesn't matter in the conversation since only a fool would be confused.

> Microwave transceivers of the type we are discussing have
> outputs measured in dBm, not dB.

Stop it Johann.

Just stop.

Playing silly games isn't going to help anyone.

Be an adult.

I can tell you know more than almost anyone who posted to date, Johann.
o Don't waste that knowledge on silly childish games Johann.

Try to use your knowledge to further what people here can do, Johann.

There are rarely people on this ng who know anything Johann, where you, and
people like Jeff Liebermann for example, can easily add more value than I
can.

But you're not going to add value by playing silly semantic games.
o It's like arguing that a tire isn't a wheel when someone says
o "How can I balance my tires at home?"

It's childish.

But worse - it's a complete waste of your otherwise appreciable skills.
o It's like quibbling over yards and meters, when it doesn't matter.

> The m is an important qualifier. It
> gives the goddamn baseline reference. 20 db means nothing. 20dbm means a
> whole lot. How can someone know how to convert 20 dbm to milliwatts if
> nobody gives the milliwatt reference?

See above.
o Everyone knows all this.

If, on a rooftop, I ask someone to "help me aim this antenna, will ya?"
I don't expect endless quibbling about antennas having a radio attached.

Everyone knows this stuff.
o Our goal, Johann, is to help them understand the stuff they don't know.

Which, as I see it for this thread:
o The distance that people have reported to connect to WiFi APs
o The ability to do that with any computer that has an Ethernet port
o Using equipment that costs about as much as what they're paying today
o But which is not sold in the typical consumer box stores they frequent

If you think the "added value" of this thread is to explain the difference
between a "decibel" and a "dBm", then, by all means, start your lecture.

But don't position that lecture as a "correction", since everyone _knows_
what the distinction is in colloquial speech, Johann. Everyone.

> It's also fairly obvious that someone is lacking in skill when they get
> the terminology wrong. Would you trust a doctor that used the wrong
> terms? I'd be highly suspicious of their training and I sure as hell
> wouldn't let someone operate on me who kept referring to my tibia as a
> cranium or something :)

Aurgh. You insist on adding _negative_ value, when you can simply add
positive value by suggesting even _better_ ways to get WiFi distance at
home.

This is the datasheet for one of my radios, Johann:
<https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/rocketm/RocketM_DS.pdf>
Do you see the letters "dbi" _anywhere_ in that spec sheet, Johann?
o There are lots of "dbm" but no "dbi", Johann.

This is the datasheet for one of my antennas, Johann:
<https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/rocketdish/rd_ds_web.pdf>
Do you see the letters "dbm" _anywhere_ in that spec sheet, Johann?
o There are lots of "dbi" but no "dbm", Johann.

Do you think, even for a moment, that I don't know why, Johann?
o Let's stop this silly game playing, Johann

If you want to start a lecture on the distinction between a decibel and a
dBi and a dBm, then, by all means, start your lecture.

But do not position it as a "correction", since I said, from the start, I'm
using colloquial terms - and - I told you - in this post - that we are all
very well educated in this stuff Johann - so you should use your
appreciable education to further our knowledge.

Using your knowledge and intellect, Johann, what can you offer the team, by
way of ADDED ADULT TECHNICAL VALUE that furthers their ability to connect
to access points that they can't currently connect to, today?

> You're passing yourself off as some sort of expert, from what I have
> read of your posts, but I have serious reservations about taking you
> seriously if you don't even know the lingua fraca of the industry.

Jesus Christ, Johann. Stop playing silly games.
o It's like quibbling over tires and wheels when it doesn't matter.

I'm asking others how far they connect via WiFi, and we received GOOD
answers from those others (one was up to 12 kilometers (7 miles), where, I
think you're smart enough to know that double that distance is possible
with this equipment we've been discussing (at both ends, of course).

If the equipment is only at one end, then it's drastically limited by the
weaker equipment, of course, but long distances are still possible.

One part of this thread's goal is to let the "adults" on this newsgroup
realize how far they can connect WiFi at the same costs as they pay now for
equipment.

For example, it amazes me that people buy "repeaters" in the local box
stores, when, for about the same price, they can buy this Mikrotik or
Ubiquiti equipment that gives them from ten times to a hundred times more
power (and hence, correspondingly, more distance).

> I've been in this business, professionally, for almost a decade.

Ah. I knew you had more knowledge than anyone yet, who has posted!

Good. I like smart people. I can learn from smart people.

Let's spend our energies on ADVANCING our knowledge, instead of playing
silly little semantic games. Shall we?

What would you suggest to the users here, for example, if they needed to
extend their WiFi range of their desktop computer, to, oh, let's say, 100
yards (100 meters)?

HINT: Do not quibble that a yard and a meter are not exactly equivalent!

> I'd
> barely rate myself as an expert (maybe more of a really skilled
> journeyman).

I could INSTANTLY tell, from your post, that you knew more than anyone else
who has posted yet, simply based on the astute observations you made.

Let's take advantage of your skills to FURTHER our capabilities!
o What would you suggest for a home computer to extend the wifi range?

Let's assume you only want to go another hundred yards (meters) or so.
o Or, maybe, you want the computer to connect to an AP only a mile away

What would you suggest to extend the Wi-Fi range of, oh, a typical desktop
or laptop, to a hundred meters (or to a mile, kilometer) further from where
it is currently maxing out?

> There's plenty of folks in this newsgroup who know a
> shit-ton more than I, and they don't get the terms wrong, which is just
> one minor indication they have a basic understanding of what they're
> talking about. The information they contribute pads out the rest, but
> they start with the basics and get them correct.

Let's take advantage of that adult technical value, if it exists, Johann.
o What would they suggest for a home computer to extend the wifi range?

Let's assume we only want to go another hundred yards (meters) or so.
o Or, maybe, we want the computer to connect to an AP only a mile away

What would you (or they) suggest to extend the Wi-Fi range of, oh, a
typical desktop or laptop PC, to a hundred meters (or to a mile, kilometer)
further from where it is currently maxing out?

Silence?

--
When people stop playing childish games, they can focus on adding value.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 15, 2019, 12:41:13 PM10/15/19

to

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 02:10:34 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:

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

Hi Johann Beretta,

Usenet is a potluck - where everyone brings what value they can, to share.

to that end, I could tell, instantly, that you had more you could share
than most people here (and we already know about Jeff Liebermann, who
happens to live near where I am, who also knows a lot about this stuff).

This is great information that you are fully aware of the WiFi power of the
type of equipment that we've been trying to discuss here as adults.

What brand do you mostly prefer in your WISP business?
o And what specific model of radios?

Here, near where Jeff Liebermann lives (other side of the hill), we all
started with the bullets, and then we trashed them for the nano's, which we
trashed for the 2.4 GHz rockets, and then, finally, we're kind of happy on
the 5GHz rockets.

Less noise for sure.

Since we remove the "old stuff", we end up with a lot of Mikrotik
equipment, but we're mostly Ubiquiti.

How about you?
o What brand/model equipment do you prefer to erect on rooftops, and why?

dpb

unread,

Oct 15, 2019, 12:54:50 PM10/15/19

to

On 10/15/2019 11:09 AM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
...

> o Only a moron would be confused by "decibel" in place of "dBm" or "dBi".

...

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it
means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

--

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Do you really think it's helpful if the helper starts quibbling
o About the "type" of decibels, or
o About the "minus" sign?

Only in the classroom, where the goals are different
o Is the type of qubbling you did ... even remotely helpful

Your quibbling (and that of others) was of no value to the group.
o It only made _you_ feel good that you found an inaccuracy

It's jsut as if you harangue the tire shops for advertising
o "We balance tires"
Or
o "We balance wheels"

When you probably don't know the slightest thing about any of this stuff.
o If you do, your quibbling doesn't prove it.

If you want to ADD VALUE, Lucifer, realize that Usenet is a pot luck.
o Your value is what you ADD to the equation

Quibbling about everyone elses' food without bringing any of your own
o Is what you did, Lucifer.

Why don't you try to ADD value to this thread, Lucifer?
o Tell us how you increase the range of our desktops, for example;
o Or, tell us how to throw (or receive) Internet from afar, Lucifer;
o Or, tell us how to paint WIFi to the far corners of our property.

Tell us something useful.

Tell us something we don't already know, Lucifer.
o Instead of childishly quibbling about colloquial terminology.

--
The value add here is that for about the price of a typicl router, you can
get far more powerful equipment that works better, when you need range.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 16, 2019, 4:13:59 PM10/16/19

to

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 13:54:13 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

>> o Point-to-Point [e.g., 2.4GHz could be as high as 158 dB]
>

> No it can't.

Hi Dan Purgert,

THANK YOU for that correction!
Mea culpa!

Also, THANK YOU FOR ADDING ADULT VALUE to this thread!

I respond to all purposefully helpful posts, where I _appreciate_ that you
found my statement above to be materially wrong (where, if I am
accidentally wrong, I admit it as soon as it's pointed out, if not sooner).

It's a characteristic of an adult.

As you may recall, I state that I aim for 100% credibility on material
facts, even after decades on Usenet, where you must admit to attain
anywhere near that kind of credibility on Usenet for material facts puts me
on the level of people like Marek Novotny, rest his soul.

I strive for 100% credibility because I own adult belief systems:
a. I base my initial belief system on assessment of facts, and,
b. If (and when) assessment of facts change, I modify my belief system
Such that my belief system is _always_ based & bolstered, by facts.

You may find that I harp on the trolls, where there are resaons for that
o The trolls infest any potluck picnic like gnats swarming around food
o The trolls have no intention to add value - they troll for amusement
o Hence, once the trolls infest a Q&A thread - the potluck is ruined

I try to swat the trolls ... to make it "less fun" for them to troll
o But, as William Unruh astutely noted ... that also adds to the noise
Where the hope is that the trolls find some other potluck to infest
(Where, the record shows, I don't feed them when they infest other threads)

Trolls like nospam apparently base their belief system on the results of a
coin toss (as far as anyone can tell), since they always fail this simple
test of their claims, when it comes to asking them for underlying facts:
o Name just one

I'm completely different from most Usenet posters (IMHO), Dan,
o For one, I avoid idle worthless useless chitchat threads
o For the other, I author threads that literally pry fact out (if possible)

To that end, Dan, in terms of valuable adult facts...
o You can _always_ ream me with facts - and I will THANK YOU when you do.

Here's a reference, for example, on the Apple newsgroups, about facts:
o wrong, by badgolferman
> Has anyone here ever admitted they were wrong publicly in the
> newsgroup even when proven so? How can everyone always be right?
> Maybe some consider it a sign of weakness if they concede a point,
> but it's actually a sign of humility and maturity.
Notice that "adults" have no problem adjusting their belief systems:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/BjiM9DsVXj8/d0X_fHUkCAAJ>
It's the common trolls (listed prior) who, IMHO, have a problem with facts.

When confronted with mere facts, in general, they respond with hatred.
o Why? I don't know why.

I think perhaps it that their belief systems aren't based on facts
o Facts scare them (like facts about Santa Claus might scare a child)
o Facts instantly DESTROY their belief systems.

This is, IMHO, far more common on Apple newsgroups simply because Apple
MARKETING is so far and above Linux & Windows marketing that the difference
in the user base (IMHO), is night and day - but we leave that for a
separate discussion on what type of people are more swayed by (admittedly
clever) Marketing, whereas I suspect the Linux folks are least affected:
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>

For me, facts _bolster_ my belief system
o More correctly, an adult logical assessment of those facts does

The people whose belief systems aren't based on actual facts
o But more so on (admittedly brilliant) marketing
Are the ones who, IMHO, are the ones most spouting their bullshit on Usenet
(e.g., people like "Snit", and "nospam", and "Chris", and "Lewis", etc.)

But even the Windows newsgroups has these types of people whose belief
systems are (apparently) backed up by exactly zero facts, where, they too
fail the most obvious of the simplest test of imaginary belief systems:
o Name just one

BTW, as a glaringly example of those who prove they can't possibly ever add
even one iota of adult value, you may note that Char Jackson just moments
ago made some of the most ridiculous claims humanly possible in this post
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/n7VGUrGdXiA/Kg9McsGtBwAJ>
1. I could get attempt to reason with Char Jackson
(which would take a month, and he'd still never accept any facts)
2. I could just ignore his always utterly worthless posts
(at the risk that _others_ would believe what he wrote)
(Pick one.)

Hence, I repeat I will ignore the aforementioned trolls in this thread.

Getting back to your on-topic calculations, I will agree that my quick
assessment of Paul's data in that sentence of the maximum for point to
point must be wrong - where I don't do "point to point" fixed setup design
all that often (actually, almost never).

What I do mostly is point to multipoint
o For example, I paint the pool or barn or distant driveway gate
o Or, I vastly increase the range of a standalone laptop or desktop

Where, all I need to do those tasks, reliably, & legally, are facts.

Hence, what I love is that you reamed me with facts.
o You can _always_ ream me with facts - as I love facts.

My belief system is based on facts!
o The one fact I'd love to know more about is the typical router power

If we compare these $100 "tranceivers" such as the ones Paul and I refer to
as the simple-to-use "Ubiquiti PowerBeam" transceivers ... they clearly can
transmit at least up to the legal limit in EIRP (isn't that correct, Dan?)
<https://www.ui.com/airmax/powerbeam/>

Luckily the math is easier for these PowerBeam radios since they're
essentially a one-part unit, where the radio, physically, is literally the
"horn" of the antenna itself, as they snap together into place such that
there is no "pigtail" accessible to the user; there is only Ethernet.
<https://www.ui.com/airmax/powerbeam-ac/>

So while there _will_ be losses we didn't account for, they should be as
minimal as Ubiquiti could have made them for these units, don't you think?

Given the PowerBeams are cheap, light, small, and, most to the point, still
vastly more powerful than a typical similarly priced SOHO router, I'm glad
Paul picked up on this PowerBeam, as I would like to start by making it the
canonical suggestion for people on this newsgroup to start with, who want
to increase their range.

I based that mostly on the fact that the price (about $100 give or take)
for the entire unit is "about what they pay" for a typical SOHO router,
and, more importantly, because the installation is about as simple as it
gets (i.e., I assess setup to be about the same as for a typical router).

Just like a router, you sit it on a shelf (or bolt it to a pole), and you
plug in the cat5 cable to your computer - and you log in (ubnt/ubnt) to
192.168.1.20 (as I recall), and you set it up:

Voila!
o You just vastly increased your Wi-Fi range for your laptop/desktop/phone!
a. You either plug it into your laptop to get from the pool to the house
b. Or you paint the pool from the house so your laptop/phone works far away
All with the same router setup ease as what you have with a common router.

Either way (access point for your computer or network card for your
computer), for about what people here pay for their puny routers, they get
actual power (up to the legal power limit for your country).

BTW, let me ask you, Dan (or others), what's a "good name" to refer to what
I said above was a "network card"?

Here's what you're doing at the pool:
o You have the PowerBeam plugged into your laptop Ethernet port.
o That gives you the maximum point-to-multipoint power available
o For about the same price you pay today for a typical SOHO router

What would you 'call' that setup in a colloquial conversation?
(Pretty much, that's what most of the people were arguing about.)

Just like we say "aiming an antenna" or "balancing tires", everyone knows
what we're talking about, what would you call this setup in a colloquial
conversation (i.e., you only get a couple of words to play with)?

As per FCC 15.247("Operation within the bands 909-928 MHz,
> 2400-2483.5 MHz, and 5725-5850 MHz")... <snip>
> (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used
> exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ
> transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi
> provided the maximum conducted output power of the intentional
> radiator is reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the directional
> gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.

This is nice to know about fixed point-to-point operation, where our WISP
who works with us need to know and deal with all of that.

While people on this ng 'can' set up a fixed point-to-point arrangement,
wouldn't you say, Dan, that the most common obvious usage of this
technology, for these computer newsgroups, would be point to multipoint,
where, as shown above, they can plop their laptop at the pool, which can be
hundreds of feet from the house, and still get good signal strength.

> That is, if you have a fixed point-to-point link (such as from a WISP
> tower to a customer's premises), you can increase the antenna gain by 3
> dB for every dB you reduce your conducted power.

This is very nice to know, Dan, as we "set up" point-to-point radios for
our WISP provider all the time - but where we simply use the settings they
give us to use. We also maintain the radios (e.g., we update the firmware,
and tweak settings, as per the WISP team; but we don't design the setup
itself anymore (we did in the past, but, as you can tell from all the spare
radios in the grandkids' playroom, we screwed up a lot before we finally
ended up with what we're using now on our rooftops.

For this group, I think we should mostly speak about point to multipoint,
since I can easily see everyone here possibly having a need to either
extend the range of the access points surrounding the house or to extend
the range of a single piece of computer equipment such as an Ethernet
enabled laptop or desktop.

> At this point, we've generally nowhere else to go. Some radios may be
> able to conduct at a few dBm below zero

Thank you Dan, for pointing out a statement I made that I based on an
incorrect interpretation of the rules that Paul kindly provided.

I'm always eager to be reamed with actual facts that are materially
important.

Adults form belief systems which should be based on facts.
o All my belief systems, are therefore, bolstered by facts.

>> So it's not just a single number.
>> o But it's my understanding that the radio won't "let" you exceed limits
>> (That understanding is literally from conversing with Ubiquiti support.)
>

> The "lockouts" are based on what you give the radio as inputs. Wrong
> inputs = wrong lockouts. This is, of course, not possible to change on
> the all-in-one units (Nanobeam, Nanostation), but any of the models with
> removable radomes (Powerbeam, Litebeam) or antennas (Rocket) can be told
> the wrong information.

Thank you Dan for pointing that out, which, in the aforementioned reference
threads, I saw that Jeff Liebermann also pointed out.

In the case of the Powerbeams though, Dan, it seemed, at first, like it's
impossible to exceed the legal limits, since the transceiver is literally
part of the antenna (there is no pigtail, for example, accessible to the
user).

However, in another post, Johann Beretta found an error in my assessment of
the facts, which I agree with, where he provided accurate information which
explained the following "can" happen if you wish to "lie" during the setup
(where I didn't consider such a bold-faced lie to even be possible).

For the device that Paul mentioned, which is described in this spec sheet:
<https://dl.ubnt.com/qsg/PBE-M5-400/PBE-M5-400_EN.html>

The router "wireless" setup tab shows two options for the antenna:
a. Feed Only (2x2) 3 dBi
b. 400 (2x2) 25 dBi

When you select the first option, you can separately set the transmit power
to the maximum of 26 dBm, where you can't exceed the legal limits by doing
so.

When you set the second option, which is just the feedhorn itself (which,
interestingly, will work just fine - but who would bother?) you can
increase the transmit power setting only to 12 dBM.

As Johann Beretta noted:
> Both options are legal as long as you select the TRUTHFUL option.
> It's perfectly legal to run a Powerbeam feedhorn in a standalone situation.
> However, why the fuck anyone would ever do that is beyond me.
> Nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that it is legal (if odd)
> to do so.
However, where you can get into trouble is when Johann noted:
> It is absolutely illegal to LIE in the configuration and choose the Feed
> Only option when it's snapped into the dish.

So, I stand corrected on my assessment that you can't set up the PowerBeam
to an illegal power settings - simply because it didn't occur to me that
people could/would lie on the router setup options.

So when people ask "are you buying licensed or unlicensed equipment", I'm
kind of wondering "why" they ask that, where, to me, it's sort of like them
asking "are you robbing banks" every time you purchase a ski mask.

Sure, you can purchase a ski mask and use it to rob banks, but, let's be
adults in this thread with purposefully helpful intent and let's stop
wasting our time accusing people of attempting to exceed legal limits.

What Dan Purgert & Johann Beretta proved with facts is that you "could" lie
in the router setup, which will enable you to exceed limits - but there's
no reason to do so (as far as I can tell), nor is there any desire to do
so. (Hence, wasting our time with accusations of robbing banks is something
people like "Good Guy" & "Diesel" & most of the apologists do - but adults
can generally add on topic value without playing their silly games).

However, this useful corrective discussion points out something useful to
share with the groups on this Usenet potluck - which is that this PowerBeam
is, perhaps, one of the best suggestions for people on this newsgroup who
want to try their hand at increasing their range, for about the same cost
they paying today for what I consider to be anemic box store consumer
stuff.

Hence...

For the remainder of _this_ discussion, I think we should concentrate on
those PowerBeams that Paul happened to astutely pick out of the bunch!
<https://i.postimg.cc/XJChDCPr/spare-access-points.jpg>
In that picture, the nanobeams and powerbeams are on the shelf since
they're pretty small (about the size of a large salad bowl, while the
rockets are on the floor (they're sturdy as all hell - where you'd be happy
to know those are all stainless steel bolts, for example, and there is
other wind & weatherproofing that you'll love to see when you see it).

The Bullets are even smaller in and of themselves (also at about $100)
<https://www.ebay.com/i/264481061466> ($18 used)
But the Ubiquiti bullets need to be screwed directly to an antenna, so I
would only recommend, for this group, the bullets if they want to put an
omni (whip) antenna onto the bullet, which makes it really nice for the
middle of the house, for example, or if you want to walk around with a
bullet in your hands:
<https://www.ui.com/airmax/bulletm/>

>> There they discuss my radio, which turns out to be, for Paul an...
>> o Ubiquiti PowerBeam M2 400, which is only 26 decibels of transmit
>> o into an 18dBi antenna, which is legal for point-to-multipoint
>

> No, it is not. The maximum EIRP of a point-to-multipoint intentional
> radiator is 36 dBm (30 dBm conducted power + 6 dBi antenna; or a 1:1
> correction thereto).

Hmmm... Dan ... I'm ok with deferring to your knowledge, I really am.
But that means I must have read Paul's page 12 wrong then.
<https://www.engeniustech.com/resources/how-to-install-long-range-point-to-point-wireless-networking-links.pdf>

Can you help clarify why my take on this one line in Paul's reference,
is different from yours with respect to this exact situation:
o PowerBeam M2 400, max 26dBm, antenna 18dBi

Paul's page 12 is titled "Maximum EIRP in 2.4 GHz", where the chart is for
"directional signals", and where line 5 of that chart (in dark blue) shows:
o Max Power = 26 dBm, Max Antenna Gain is 18dBi, EIRP is 44 dBm (25 Watts)

The PowerBeam M2 400 on my shelf fits that line perfectly.
o Is it that this chart is NOT showing what the legal limits are?

Another point where we seem to differ, although not by a lot, is what the
commonly available EIRP is of most home routers that are in this same $100
price range.

My research shows, for example, that the venerable (yet old) WRT54G is a
puny 14dBm or 15 dBm (as I recall from a prior post) plus about 2dBi or
3dBi from the omni antennas, which provides paltry range compared to, oh,
say, a 600mW bullet and 8 dBi omni attached, which is actually the same
size (or even smaller) than the WRT54G would be (although they're different
"things" since one has a switch attached while the other does only DHCP
over the one RJ45).

Note, for about the same price, the difference in range is huge, which,
after all, is what we're talking about extending in this thread.

By the way, since this thread is all about adding value as our contribution
to share with this Usenet potluck, I thank those below for their answers:

Johann Beretta <ber...@nun-ya-bizness.com>
o Johann Beretta can 'see' visitor center access points 60 miles away

pjp <pjpoirier...@hotmail.com>
o pjp connects to his Internet over WiFi about 1 kilometer away LOS

Gary <g.ma...@att.net>
o Gary connects to a neighborhood WiFi about 1/2 block away

gfre...@aol.com
o He experienced a dozen home in a valley connected to a single DSL
o <http://gfretwell.com/ftp/montana/Paradise%20Valley/Slow%20internet.jpg>

Gavin <gavin....@kalifornia.guv>
o Gavin uses only Ethernet

Frank <fr...@frank.net>
o Frank uses Ethernet because the speed is 3X for him

Terry Coombs <snag...@msn.com>
o Desktop isn't WiFi; but other computers are "right next" to the DSL modem

Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@yahoo.com>
o Her desktop has no wifi while her WiFi router feeds the house fine

Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
o "about 2 metre but sometimes as little as about 5 cm"

Rene Lamontagne <rla...@shaw.ca>
o "exactly 51 inches"

Note: This thread is perfect for two types of people above:
a. Those whose desktops do NOT have WiFi (they only need an RJ45 port)
b. Anyone who needs far greater WiFi range than what they already have

--
The goal of this thread is to (a) inform and (b) learn more about how
anyone with Ethernet-enabled computers can vastly extend their range.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 16, 2019, 4:35:21 PM10/16/19

to

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:47:16 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> The transmit power is not
>>turned down exactly at the same rate as the antenna
>>gain goes up, so slapping a dish on it is still a "win"
>>of some sort.
>>

>> Paul
>
> Well, it improves the receiving gain, too.

Since, in this Usenet potluck, we bring our suggestions to share so that

a. Those whose desktops do NOT have WiFi (they only need an RJ45 port)
b. Anyone who needs far greater WiFi range than what they already have

I agree with both Paul & J.P. Gilliver (John) that:
o It's likely more bang for the buck to put a dollar into the antenna dB
o Than to put that same dollar into the radio transmit dB
Although complexities arise when you get to sensitivity & noise immunity.

What would be nice, by way of shared comparisons, if people would note what
the power output is of the current Wi-Fi enabled SOHO router they're using.

As far as I can tell, so far anyway, typical consumer router EIRPs are
orders of magnitude lower than the PowerBeam we've latched onto as our
suggested unit to increase WiFi range for Ethernet-enabled computers.

Can others share what EIRP we can typically attain with $100 home routers?

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 16, 2019, 5:11:31 PM10/16/19

to

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:45:58 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

> In open air, with a "standard" +3 dBi antenna (as used in nearly all
> 802.11a/b/g/n/ac general-purpose access points), you'll get about 120
> meters or so in open air before the connection starts becoming
> unreliable.

Hi Dan,

Thanks for sharing that useful information about 3dBi omnis on most
general-purpose "access points", where I assume you mean routers mostly.

120 meters in open air seems kind of far for a typical $100 home router,
but let's accept that as the "typical" open-air distance since we are
discussing increasing the range in two fundamental common instances:
1. The computer has only an RJ45 network interface, or,
2. The computer's current Wi-Fi range is insufficient.

> Now, if you live way out in the middle of nowhere, you might be able to
> push it a bit farther, due to less EM noise; but nowhere near "hundreds
> of yards" or "a small number of miles".

Understood. I live in the "middle of nowhere" so to speak, but even I have
unidentified noise as the free AirView Spectrum Analyzer software shows:
<https://wlan-profi-shop.de/bilder/airVIEW.jpg>

I'm sure you're aware of this, Dan, but the others may not be aware that
this type of analysis is yours for the taking with this equipment, where,
to buy a standalone hardware spectrum analyzer tool would be costly:
<https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/airmax/UBNT_DS_airView.pdf>

> Note too, that in order to do this, both ends will need to be up at
> about their maximum conducted transmit power, and as such, the overall
> MCS rate will suffer somewhat.

Agreed that both ends matter.
o BTW, there's nothing stopping you from buying _two_ radios for this task

We haven't covered "setup" yet, where the reader will be happy to note that
I assess the setup to be about the same simplicity (or complexity) as is
the typical setup for any home router (as a repeater, for example).

Luckily, setup is, in the end, not a big deal since you generally have two
main options, where there are plenty of setup tutorials on the net:
o Configure a Point-to-Multipoint (PtMP) ISP-Style Access Point
<https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/205197610-airMAX-Configure-a-Point-to-Multipoint-PtMP-ISP-style-Access-Point>

o How to Configure an Indirect Point-to-Point (PtP) Link (Bridge, Repeater)
<https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/204952284-airMAX-How-to-Configure-an-Indirect-Point-to-Point-PtP-Link-Bridge-Repeater->

> If one end or the other has a higher gain antenna (such as the 16 dBi
> one on the UBNT Nanobeam M5 -- which is considered a legacy product by
> the manufacturer), then you may be able to eke out some additional
> range; although at that point it's entirely up to the capabilities of
> the mobile device.

Agreed that there are so many options, that it is confusing...

Given that the whole point of this discussion is:
a. Figure out what range people get today
b. Learn how to extend that range (appreciably) if needed...

This document by Uquibiti helps people decide what "stuff" they need:
o Which product should I use
<https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/205197750-airMAX-Which-product-should-I-use->

> One thing to note is that many manufacturers of these long-range radios
> have moved on to ASICs, and as such, the devices are no longer able to
> modulate the carrier in an 802.11-compliant manner. So, no "WiFi".

Let's stick to "WiFi" for the purpose of "this" discussion, since our goal
o Is to determine what range most people need

And, if they need more (perhaps even vastly more) range, then...
o We can show them how to extend the range of their home access points
o And we can show them how to extend the range of their standalone computer
(Even if that standalone computer has only an Ethernet and no "WiFi" card.)

BTW, Dan, what should we colloquially refer to the setup like this as?
<https://i.postimg.cc/6QJqK6Cj/desktop02.jpg>

--
The goal of this Usenet potluck is to (vastly) increase range at low cost.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 16, 2019, 7:23:48 PM10/16/19

to

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:28:50 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:

> I've also been using computers since 1979. I'm not a newbie.

<OT>
Like you, and like most here, I'm no noob to Usenet either.

I started with, oh, I guess Masscomp or SunOS, maybe VAXVMS, where we used
'rn' and 'tin', where, even today, I use "vi" & telnet as my "client".

The point to keep in mind is that trolls have always existed
o Trolls always prove one thing each time they post

All I have to do is point to what they trolls themselves wrote to prove it
o The trolls swarm like gnats at any Usenet potluck to ruin it if they can

Who are the trolls who posted _zero_ value in this thread?
o Fox's Mercantile <jda...@att.net> (more than a half dozen times)
o trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> (more than 14 posts in this thread)
o dpb <no...@none.net> (two utterly worthless posts in this thread)
o Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.xxx> (two completely off topic worthless posts)

An example of pointing to what these trolls post, look at this:
o From: % <per...@gmail.com>

"i thought he looked like a fake tit"

Clearly these people did not bring adult value to the Usenet potluck
o Hence, the question, always, is "can" they (is it actually "in" them?)

Think about these facts when we realize how trolls ruin Usenet
o People like Fox's Mercantile can't post a _single_ item of on-topic value
o Even after having posted more than a half dozen times (all worthless)

Even as I haven't responded once to trolls from Fox's Mercantile or djb
o Yet, like cowardly bullies, they insist on their god-given right to troll

What is an adult supposed to do about this infestation of trolls?
o There is always the option to not feed them (which I clearly tried here)
o Yet, that doesn't stop them (Fox's Mercantile _still_ repeatedly trolled)

Over the years, I've realized, all these trolls _can_ do .... is troll.
o They have no adult value to add whatsoever; to any technical topic.

There are, as I see it, two fundamental use models on Usenet:
a. The model I use, which is FAQ style - ask a question & work the answer
b. There's the model the trolls use - post nothing of value - for amusement

Since the trolls like Fox's Mercantile & Ed Pawloski & djb are here for
amusement, there's really nothing an adult can do - since they trolled this
thread, multiple times, even though they were completely ignored.

Nothing can stop the gnats from infesting the Usenet potluck.
o I tried to swat them away (e.g., trader_4); but they keep coming.

There are only two kinds of people who posted to this thread:
o Those who posted technical value with purposefully helpful intent
o And those trolls who prove, by what they post, this is amusement for them

We're having a serious technical conversation, Johann Beretta
o And the trolls are consistently posting their child-like drivel.

The problem, with Usenet, as I see it...
o Is that the trolls insist on proving they have a God-given right to troll

The good part about Usenet, as I see it...
o Is that adults can still share nuggets of useful on-topic tech advice

I appreciate that YOU clearly have adult on-topic technical value to add
o As do others like Jeff Liebermann who contributes greatly to Usenet

--
This thread ascertained what range people are getting today, and then we
discussed ways to help obtain vastly greater range (if needed).

Fox's Mercantile

unread,

Oct 16, 2019, 7:45:10 PM10/16/19

to

On 10/16/19 6:23 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> <OT>
> Like you, and like most here, I'm no noob to Usenet either.

But unlike the rest of us here, you're like a leaky toilet
that just keeps going on and on.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 16, 2019, 8:44:31 PM10/16/19

to

> something done - ....
...

Au contraire, good buddy. It's precisely where precision is _most_
important.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 17, 2019, 11:23:33 AM10/17/19

to

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 06:10:39 -0300, pjp wrote:

> I can certainly see the "hole" in the trees where the RV is located but
> there's part of a field to go across and then straight woods and all
> downhill. You are right, all I'm asking is if it's possible to overcome
> the obstacles buying off the shelf stuff. I'm not really worried about
> "breaking the law" per se as I am rural enough I can't imagine anyone
> ever even noticing, e.g. 3/4 houses in 5 Km radius and all facing away
> from direction of RV. One possibility at about 45 degree angle but new
> owners would have to appear given current owners will never own a pc of
> any sort.

Hi pjp,

It's good that you can "see" something at the RV, as this stuff is line of
sight (LOS), where the distances are immense LOS, but they suck otherwise.

The way you get LOS in trees, of course, is to mount the antenna on the
tree (which we do all the time), and at home, the way to get LOS is you
mount the antenna on the chimney (which we also do all the time).

Or on a pole (which we do all the time too).

As long as you can see the antennas, you're good to go, where we can deal
with the Fresnel Zone later.

Once you have two antennas pointed at each other, all you do, physically
speaking, is connect the home end to Internet via Cat5 cable, usually to a
router switch but it could just as well be directly to the modem or
whatever you get your Internet from.

At the RV you have a couple of choices depending on what "device" is at the
RV, where you don't need anything else if you're going to plug the Cat5
cable directly into, oh, say, a desktop at the RV.

Often, if you're going to go to all that trouble, what we do is find a
spare SOHO router lying around (we have tons of them, as you can imagine),
and we just plug the RV antenna Cat6 into that "RV router".

That's the best setup, which gives the most flexibility at the RV end.

Essentially, you have the same Internet at the RV as you have at home.
a. At the RV, mobile devices can connect to the RV router
b. Laptops and desktops with WiFi can connect to the RV router
c. Desktops without Internet can connect to the RV router switch
etc.

Notice while my original "pool" example is only hundreds of feet of range,
so you can skip the second radio in the case of hundreds of feet - your "RV
example" is a kilometer, which is likely too far for more mobile devices
and laptops to send back to. (There are people here who can do the math
since all this stuff is well known to them - where there are web sites
which allow you to run the calculation.)

Without even running any calculations, you'll notice I'm suggesting a radio
& router on each end, because I know that works in all circumstances if
they can "see" each other (i.e., LOS).

There's lots of good stuff in any search where those are the basics:
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=calculation+wifi+distance+antenna+radio>

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 17, 2019, 11:26:28 AM10/17/19

to

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:09:55 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:

> I am fairly curious as to why you have not addressed the point that I
> have made a couple of times where it's trivial to put a PowerBeam (for
> example) into a configuration that violates FCC transmit limits.

Hi Johann Beretta,

Let's stay at the high level without dropping to the level of the trolls.
o Once we drop to their level, we can never climb back out of the morass

When I buy a ski mask, it doesn't even cross my mind that some people need
to be admonished to not rob banks when they buy that same ski mask.

It just doesn't.
o I'm quite a reasonable logical sensible fellow, if I do say so myself.

> I apologize if I simply missed it. But in the event I did not, why have
> you not addressed this?

I directly addressed it in this thread, Johann, & even quoted your words!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.internet.wireless/Dpk9EhVreJk/TyR5mVYYDwAJ>

> In the event you did not see it, are you aware that using a PowerBeam M5
> 400 (as an example) with "Feed Only" on the wireless tab but, in
> reality, having the feedhorn inside the 400mm dish, and the transmit
> power set to maximum, will violate FCC transmit limits for the 5 GHz band?

This is an exact excerpt from that very post in this very thread, Johann:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.internet.wireless/Dpk9EhVreJk/TyR5mVYYDwAJ>

> As Johann Beretta noted:
> > Both options are legal as long as you select the TRUTHFUL option.
> > It's perfectly legal to run a Powerbeam feedhorn in a standalone situation.
> > However, why the fuck anyone would ever do that is beyond me.
> > Nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that it is legal (if odd)
> > to do so.
> However, where you can get into trouble is when Johann noted:
> > It is absolutely illegal to LIE in the configuration and choose the Feed
> > Only option when it's snapped into the dish.
>
> So, I stand corrected on my assessment that you can't set up the PowerBeam
> to an illegal power settings - simply because it didn't occur to me that
> people could/would lie on the router setup options.

See above which was posted in this thread yesterday:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.internet.wireless/Dpk9EhVreJk/TyR5mVYYDwAJ>

Here is the quote in this very thread where I agreed with you, a priori:

> So, I stand corrected on my assessment that you can't set up the PowerBeam
> to an illegal power settings - simply because it didn't occur to me that
> people could/would lie on the router setup options.

> Mind you, I'm not advocating these options go away as I can think of a
> few situations where they could be handy (and legal) to have?
> Specifically it is possible to build a custom dish for the transmitter
> that would fall somewhere in between the two options (Feedhorn only &
> 400mm dish) that would be, at worst, a gray area.

When I buy a ski mask, it's assumed I can use it for skiing, but, if I want
to, I can use it for camping, and, if I want to, I can use it for
Halloween, and, if I want to.....

You stood outside the ski shop, you saw I advocated buying a ski mask, and
you told me to not rob a bank with it, where, much to my surprise, I found
you "could" rob a bank with it, which I agreed with you on almost
immediately in this very thread.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.internet.wireless/Dpk9EhVreJk/TyR5mVYYDwAJ>

If you missed that post, please refer to it as I think I agreed with
EVERYTHING you said, and I did so openly and obviously, sans guile.

I'm quite a reasonable logical sensible fellow, if I do say so myself.

> Furthermore, not only can one violate limits, but one can do so well
> inside the DFS bands. Do you concede that this presents a real public
> safety problem if such a configuration is done near an airport using
> TDWR radar? (yes I know the word radar is redundant here, but I use it
> for clarification for lay persons)

Johann,

You have very VALUABLE information to share on this public Usenet potluck.
o And I have a lot of hope we can help others do what you do all the time

Let's not waste those valuable resources quibbling.
o Let's help people!

So far, one person and one person only has expressed an interest to add a
WiFi antenna so that he can throw his Internet signal from his house, to
his RV which is parked a kilometer away in an opening of the trees.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.internet.wireless/Dpk9EhVreJk/LvDouUI3DwAJ>

You might notice, from my responses, that I never once admonished him to
rob a bank. I didn't query whether his RV is parked illegally. I didn't ask
whether he is storing dead bodies in the refrigerator of said RV. I didn't
ask what he wants to do with the Internet (illegal bitcoin mining perhaps)?

Harping endlessly on that people can rob banks when they buy a ski mask
shows how you think, I agree ... but it isn't a necessary conversation when
all we're doing is explaining to people what they "can" do.

If you buy a ski mask - you can ski.
o If you buy a radio - you can paint your RV.

We do NOT need to warn pjp at this stage to not look at porn at that RV.
o There is zero indication that pjp is attempting to break the law

He simply wants to know how to get Internet 1 kilometer away to his RV.

Why don't we spend our energy advising people like pjp
o Where, others will learn from listening in on that effort.

Here's my most recent intentionally helpful advice to pjp
o Where your advice trumps mine as you know far more than I ever will

Can you help answer this question for this user?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.electronics.repair/mfFaPuRWHmg/oEk9G8jTBwAJ>

--
The goal is to share useful information on this Usenet public potluck.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 17, 2019, 12:05:41 PM10/17/19

to

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 01:41:57 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:

>> Am I close?
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/tCxLW2ZN/align01.jpg>
>>
>> I don't know where to look to see the signal strength numbers or graph.
>>

> No graph. You just get a single row of numbers
> https://mega.nz/#!kQh0nAgb!kUeDNj1LyAjBueiih3bLCMIPif4oRmCnX-u__qxNTlQ

Hi Johann,
Thanks for that information that it's not a graph; just a row of numbers.

At this point, I'm not going to worry about aiming that antenna, as the
Mikrotik routerboard and miniPCI 802.11n WiFi card is working just fine
with signal strength of about -40 dBm in "bridge mode", through multiple
physical obstacles (walls and floors).

I do agree with you on two things about that Mikrotik interface:
o It's like Linux - it can do everything
o But you have to find it first and then you have to know how to use it

The Ubiquiti AirOS router GUI is more like home Netgear/Linksys stuff.

> As you'll recall, I don't generally use MikroTik radios. This screenshot
> is from the single operational 'Tik CPE device I have.

I'm like you, in that my only MikroTik equipment was what I got for free
when I replaced all the nearby neighbors' Mikrotik stuff with Ubuiquit
Nanos (at that time), which we subsequently replaced with 2.4GHz rockets,
and then, finally, 5GHz rockets.

Some people kept their old equipment, the rest asked us to cart it away.
o I save all sorts of things (want a dozen satellite dishes, for example?)

> Supposedly you can get audio feedback if you input the target MAC into
> the alignment settings, but I haven't been successful.

Yea. I saw that in a video, where the other end of this Mikrotick radio is
a normal SOHO router (Netgear, I think), and not Mikrotick CPE.

I'm ok. I'm sure I 'can' get a visible & audio alignment output out of the
Mikrotik equipment - but what I learned from you is that you were right
when you said they "hide" it, much like Linux is often characterized by
Windows or Apple folks.

For the purpose of this thread, I wouldn't recommend Mikrotik to the
laypeople, where I'd recommend, as you did, Ubiquiti.

Specifically, I'd "start" with the PowerBeam and then move up or down from
there, based on what the customer needs are.

We have our first 'customer', in pjp who asked this question here:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.electronics.repair/mfFaPuRWHmg/gTWcR_mzBwAJ>

You can help him too, by adding value to the response posted here:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.internet.wireless/Dpk9EhVreJk/FRfYpRFXDwAJ>

Where any help you can provide will be passed on to pjp accordingly.

> This video is crappy but does a decent job of explaining how it works
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_D91n9iWO8
>
> I think to get audio feedback requires linking to another MikroTik
> device, but I'm not positive. MK wireless is where my knowledge breaks
> down.

Thanks for that advice, which I agree with you and appreciate the help.
o I agree with you on the fact Mikrotik took the "linux" route (sort of).

Luckily, we've replaced all the Mikrotik CPE with Ubiquiti by now.
o And even then, we went through a series of Ubiquiti CPE

From bullets, to nanos, to powerbeams, to M2 rockets, to M5 rockets.
o Sigh. We made a _lot_ of mistakes.

The funny thing I learned is that perhaps the biggest mistake was in trying
to buy the smallest device that "fit the requirements".

In hindsight, it would have been cheaper, in the end, to buy the biggest
device that fit the requirements.

That is, in hindsight, it just wasn't worth the money attempting to save by
buying the "least powerful device" that would work - where we should have
bought the most powerful device that we could reasonably afford.

Even so, the switch from 2.4GHz to 5GHz was basically inevitable, over the
past ten or so years I've been doing this stuff for my home and for others.

--
Usenet is a public potluck where adutls come to share items of value.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 17, 2019, 7:40:20 PM10/17/19

to

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 01:44:53 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:

>> I don't know where to look to see the signal strength numbers or graph.
>>
>

> I should have added, in my previous post, that I have not used WinBox
> for alignment, so I cannot help there. The few times I've done an
> alignment (2 or 3 times max) I used the web interface.

Hi Johann,

Thanks for reminding me of the Mikrotik web interface (I've always used the
winbox.exe executable), where I just tried that web interface into RouterOS
v6.28, which, by all appearances, is "similar but different" from what it
looks like inside of WinBox.

One thing in the web interface which is VERY different is that windows get
replaced when you click buttons, whereas in Winbox, windows just pop up all
over the place, and remain.

> No surprise there as it's in a rather dumb location. Interfaces / WLAN1
> / Near the top (10th button from the left in my router)

Using a variety of browsers...

I tried the same sequence, but received the same result, exactly.
a. Log into the web interface of RouterOS v6.28 as admin
b. Press "Interfaces" (top left under "Quick Set")
<https://i.postimg.cc/6QQ2Lt74/align02.jpg>
c. That brings up "bridge1", "ether1" & "wlan1" in the "Interface List"
d. Left click on "wlan1" which brings up "Interface <wlan1>"
<https://i.postimg.cc/05S6CtNn/align03.jpg>
d. Click on the "Align..." button, which brings up "Alignment (Running)"
<https://i.postimg.cc/JzpthvTr/align04.jpg>

Same as before with Winbox.
o "Align" does nothing (that I can tell)
o "Scan" spits out (AP, #, BSSID, SSID, Band, Width, Freq, Strength, Noise, S:N, Name, Version)
o "Snooper" spits out #, Freq, Band, Address, SSID, SIgnal, Freq %, Traf %, Bandwidth, Networks, Stations.
o Frequency Usage spits out usage and frequency and noise floor for a dozen items
o "Sniff" lists packet information such that things move in the display
o "Torch" does something, who knows what, but things are moving in the display

As before, I'm going to be like Apple people and just give up, as I'm not
going to worry about it, since the radio is pushing signal through floors
and walls just fine the way it is, given I have about -40 dBm of signal
strength on a desktop that has only Ethernet.

Thanks for trying to help me; I appreciate that, but let's not waste time
on this MikroTik alignment stuff as your point is well made that they hide
things, but Mikrotik took a Linux-like approach, and, we mostly use
Ubiquiti anyway.

The person who needs help, I think, is pjp who has the 1km where he's only
got a small window LOS into the trees where he parks his RV away from the
house.

--
Usenet is a potluck where adults congregate to share items of value.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 17, 2019, 8:01:03 PM10/17/19

to

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:09:38 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

> Because a typical all-in-one router is three devices that should each
> cost about $100 (at the low end) crammed into one box and sold for $100.

1. Router (with DHCP)
2. Wi-Fi (802.11 b, g, n)
3. Antenna (with horn)
4. Switch (not shown)
<https://i.postimg.cc/s2c2L8Wd/mikrotik-router.jpg>

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 18, 2019, 1:19:15 AM10/18/19

to

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 21:20:27 -0400, Paul wrote:

> The IEEE articles on the South American distance records,
> they do it between two mountain-tops. And the distance
> is several hundred kilometers. (The protocol timer needs
> to be modified to get any datarate with that setup, and
> the datarate isn't exactly high.)
>
> And these efforts are more "hiking trials" than fancy tech.
> If there's a mountain with a road to the top, so much the better.
> The topography is the enabler. And aiming the dish is more
> than half the fun. Not many home users will have two
> conveniently placed mountain-tops, to get over the trees.

Hi Paul,

In summary, all pjp needs is to be able to "see" each antenna.

I agree you can go pretty far line of sight, as you just shared with us,
where I happen to live on a mountain surrounding Silicon Valley, where I
can likely see for more than 20, maybe 30 or more miles in some directions,
but only five or ten miles in others.

At WiFi frequencies, the distance pjp can attain will depend on how "clear"
his line of sight path is from the home to the RV.

If he can "see" the antenna, then, in our experience, the obstructions in
the Fresnel Zone aren't going to kill his signal, as long as he chooses a
powerful enough setup.

In the clear, I doubt there is a single Ubiquiti CPE radio that wouldn't
treat 1 kilometer as child's play though. A kilometer is nothing for WiFi.

What pjp needs, mainly, is simply the following:
a. A radio at his house that can see the radio at his RV.
b. A radio at his RV that can see the radio at the house.

I didn't think of this, until you brought up distances, but pjp doesn't
really even need AC power at the RV since these radios are about as
flexible as anything on this planet when it comes to power supplies.

They're usually able to handle from about 12 VDC to about 24 VDC at about 1
amp to 2 amps peak, which, if pjp only wants the radio working when he's
literally sitting in the RV, he can do by mooching off the RV battery.

I haven't ever needed to do that; but it sure seems possible (and, if not,
one of the folks on this ng will be glad to ream me with facts).

The main requirement pjp needs is each radio has to each the other.
o The radios are about $100 (give or take) depending on the radio

For example: <https://www.ui.com/products/>
o Bullet <https://www.ui.com/airmax/bullet-ac/>
<https://www.ui.com/airmax/bulletm/>
o LiteBeam <https://www.ui.com/airmax/litebeam-ac-gen2/>
<https://www.ui.com/airmax/litebeam-m5/>
o NanoBeam <https://www.ui.com/airmax/nanobeam-ac-gen2/>
<https://www.ui.com/airmax/nanobeamm/>
o PowerBeam <https://www.ui.com/airmax/powerbeam-ac-gen2/>
<https://www.ui.com/airmax/powerbeam/>
etc.

I've never used them, but maybe these "nanostation" pairs would work:
<https://www.ui.com/airmax/nanostationm/>

They're designed to mount with "no tools" (or so they say).

Jeff Liebermann

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 18, 2019, 10:22:23 PM10/18/19

to

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 02:28:09 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> Actually, I've found some of the _cheaper_ USB wifi "dongles" have an
> aerial socket (they come with a stubby "rubber duck" type aerial, but
> removable) - this sort of thing: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/27241640286.
> The router end _often_ has aerials on removable sockets.

Hi J.P. Gilliver,

That might be a neat idea for pjp (and others) to explore.

Unfortunately, that link shows up "dead" when I just tried it:
<https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/27241640286>

Do you have a working link so we can take a look at it for pjp?
o What's important is the transmit power & antenna gain!

Also, does anyone know what COUNTRY pjp is in?

> For the aerials, this doesn't look too bad
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/233366568286:

Let's look at that antenna, where, I entered its description into Google:
o 2.4Ghz Wifi Antenna 25Dbi Rp Sma Outdoor Wireless Yagi Antenna Directional B S2P
Which found it for $18 at Amazon:

To see what my favorite distributor, Streakwave, sells like it:
<https://www.amazon.com/2-4GHz-RP-SMA-Antenna-Wireless-Outdoor/dp/B075TGCR3G>

And $14 at Walmart:
<https://www.walmart.com/ip/TSV-RP-SMA-2-4GHz-25dBi-Directional-Outdoor-Wireless-Yagi-Antenna-WiFi-For-Router-VP/784752332>

Where this has a nice photo of the connector, which seems to be, on first
inspection, to be an "N-connector" (like those the bullets have):
<https://www.amazon.com/Antenna-Booster-802-11b-GETWIREDUSA-US70/dp/B01BTE2WCY>

Given you need to reduce losses when connecting these things, the $75
"bullet" should plug right in, and that gives you 630mW of transmit power:
<https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-Bullet-M2-HP-Wireless/dp/B00HXT8DNM>

Note: You do NOT want to be futzing around with the connectors!
(You can lose decibels in just the connection, even when done right!)

> even includes the fixings for a
> pole or wall. Obviously, you'd need the pole (and a lot more cable,
> which not to lose signal at those frequencies isn't going to be cheap),
> but I would hope a lot less than 300.

Hi John,
You have to consider that the user doesn't TOUCH the RF cabling.

The "cable" for RF is always as short as it can possibly be.
o Notice there is ZERO cable in my powerbeams, for example.
<https://i.postimg.cc/CLBXc080/antenna03.jpg>
o And notice my bullet attached to a planar antenna has zero cable
<https://i.postimg.cc/cHLndnbY/antenna.jpg>

Your setup costs about the same as my setup pictured above does.
o Depending on how much your radio costs, of course

> That claims to be 25 dBi; dishes
> are harder to search for on ebay, but the few I found seem also to be 24
> or 25 dBi, but a lot more expensive (and I suspect would be more
> wind-susceptible).

The wind is NOT a problem for any of these dish antennas properly mounted.
o Neither is the rain.

I wouldn't choose my antenna based on worrying about what won't happen.
o I'd choose the antenna based on gain and location

I'd also diligently MATCH the RF connector!

> [Those, as I see them, are post free, about 2 pounds for the dongle and
> 8 for the aerial; if they come out differently where you are, search for
> "wifi yagi" and "USB wifi dongle" (or similar) on your local ebay.]

John,
The USB dongle "might" be a good idea
o But your link didn't work for me.

Do you have a description of it?
o Particularly the transmit power & antenna gain

--
When Usenet works like it should, adults share valueable information.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 18, 2019, 10:40:18 PM10/18/19

to

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 02:18:54 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

>> In message <slrnqqknm...@djph.net>, Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net>

>> writes:
>>>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

>>>> The only thing _I_ do not know about is whether you can use ordinary
>>>> "domestic" "wi-fi" kit (albeit with a couple of high-gain aerials), -
>>>> the sort most people use to allow them to use laptops, fobile moans,
>>>> etc. around the house, or whether you need special kit like the
>>>> companies who provide WISP use, which I imagine costs a _lot_ more. I
>>>
>>>All told, you're in for about the same. Pair of "AC" Nanobeam will set
>>>you back only about $300.
>>>
>>>Even if you find some "regular soho AP" that'll have the necessary
>>>connectors for antennas for cheap, you still need the outdoor antennas,
>>>and so on that ends up eating into the "savings".
>>>
>>>

>> Actually, I've found some of the _cheaper_ USB wifi "dongles" have an
>> aerial socket (they come with a stubby "rubber duck" type aerial, but
>> removable) - this sort of thing: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/27241640286.
>> The router end _often_ has aerials on removable sockets.
>>

>> For the aerials, this doesn't look too bad

>> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/233366568286: even includes the fixings for a
>
> "cheap, good. pick one" comes to mind.
>
> I can't say it's utter garbage (as I don't have it), but cheaping out on
> antennas can lead to headaches. Not to mention that the signal will
> attenuate somewhat heavily in a coax cable between the transmitter and
> the antenna (30 dB per 100 feet in RG6).

Hi Dan,

I like JP Gilliver's suggestion to use less expensive equipment than the
$100 PowerBeams I'm suggesting that pjp use to throw his WiFi from his
house to a puny 1 kilometer away - where JP's link was dead so we don't yet
know the transmit power of the suggested radio.

But on the antenna connections, I wouldn't suggest extending the length.

o Remember I asked the group WHY my $75 bullet had zero Rf cable?
<https://i.postimg.cc/cHLndnbY/antenna.jpg>

It's the same reason my $100 PowerBeam also has zero RF cable:
<https://i.postimg.cc/CLBXc080/antenna03.jpg>

About six inches is the longest RF cable I have, in my $150 rockets, Dan:
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrkz5mgs/antenna01.jpg>

There is a really good REASON the RF coax is short to nonexistent, Dan.
o Paul already said why, when I asked him why this is the case.

When you need distance by wire, you use cat5 cable.
o It's what I've seen all the professionals do.

The only thing pjp needs to do with the RF coax is MATCH the connector.
o Everything else is done with cat5 cable.

I like John's idea of less expensive equipment - but we don't yet know the
cost or power of the suggested "USB" radio transmitter so we can't do a
comparison yet for pjp.

--
Usenet is a potluck where people from all backgrounds mix & share ideas.

unread,

Oct 18, 2019, 11:57:59 PM10/18/19

to

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 23:33:35 -0400, Paul wrote:

> Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 02:28:09 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I've found some of the _cheaper_ USB wifi "dongles" have an
>>> aerial socket (they come with a stubby "rubber duck" type aerial, but
>>> removable) - this sort of thing: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/27241640286.
>>> The router end _often_ has aerials on removable sockets.
>>

>> Hi J.P. Gilliver,
>>
>> That might be a neat idea for pjp (and others) to explore.
>>
>> Unfortunately, that link shows up "dead" when I just tried it:
>> <https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/27241640286>
>>
>> Do you have a working link so we can take a look at it for pjp?
>> o What's important is the transmit power & antenna gain!
>>
>> Also, does anyone know what COUNTRY pjp is in?
>>

>>> For the aerials, this doesn't look too bad
>>> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/233366568286:
>>
>

> 2.4Ghz Wifi Antenna 25Dbi Rp Sma Outdoor
> Wireless Yagi Antenna Directional B S2P
>

> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/233366568286
>
> "the signal can be send more far away in distances"
>
> *******
>
> 150M Mini USB WiFi Wireless LAN 802.11 N/G/B
> Adapter Dongle & Antenna black KJ
>
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/272416402866
>
> *******
>
> The problem with products like this, is the RF
> chain is in the single CMOS chip, and after three
> months, the "output" can drop enough to make them
> a bad bargain. At least this one demonstrates
> that the antenna is detachable.
>
> "600Mbps USB WiFi Adapter Dongle Card Wireless"
>
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/600Mbps-USB-WiFi-Adapter-Dongle-Card-Wireless-Network-Laptop-Desktop-PC-Antenna/383004055738
>
> Paul

Hi Paul,

Thanks for locating the dongle that JP (presumably) had suggested:
<https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/600Mbps-USB-WiFi-Adapter-Dongle-Card-Wireless-Network-Laptop-Desktop-PC-Antenna/383004055738>

Those things certainly are damn cheap, that's fer' sure!
o If they work for pjp ... then that's a GREAT idea.

As you can see from this photo, I'm all for just plugging stuff into a
typical laptop like my IBM ThinkPad to instantly extend its WiFi range:
<https://i.postimg.cc/Hs0NWSKr/laptopnanobeam.jpg>

I didn't think about it at the time I took that photo (in 2017), but, I
could have pulled out the horn, as Johann Beretta noted, and then it would
have been a LOT smaller also.

Those "dongles" list the "Mbps" but what about what really matters?
o We need the transmit power & antenna gain

That's really what matters.
o Whenever they won't say it ... I start worrying.

But I have to easily admit - those things are damn cheap!
o If only they work!

Dunno.

Does anyone have experience with these things?

For example, one option for pjp is to only put the Ubiquiti radio on his
roof and then use one of those dongles at the RV.

The limitation would be in the weakest equipment which, of course, would be
the WiFi dongle so that's why it's critically important to ascertain:
o What is the transmit power & antenna gain of those dongles?

--
Usenet is great as a public potluck where adults helpfully share ideas.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 19, 2019, 3:32:47 PM10/19/19

to

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 19:41:56 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:

> The term is "wireless bridge" or "wifi bridge". Both are accepted
> definitions in the WISP business.
>
> https://kb.netgear.com/227/What-is-a-wireless-bridge

Hi Johann,

Thanks for the purposefully helpful terminology hint.
o Particularly since the way Ubiquiti uses 'bridge' always confused me

From the Netgear KB article:
<https://kb.netgear.com/227/What-is-a-wireless-bridge>
o #1 Bridge: Network part 1 ... separation distance ... Network part 2
o #2 Bridge: Computer 1 ... sends traffic ... directly to computer 2

Even in _that_ article, the term "bridge" was loosely used.
o Worse - I think - is how Ubiquiti seems (to me) to use that term! :)

For example, here is a photo of my "nanobridge" & "nanobeam" on the shelf
o But, I always used them for exactly the same things (don't you?)
<https://i.postimg.cc/0NYJn7mF/nanobridge-nanobeam.jpg>

Here's a closeup snapshot of the back end of the respective horns:
<https://i.postimg.cc/905nFgxX/nanobeamnanobridge.jpg>

In terms of size & construction, they're relatively similar in that they
both have similarly sized steel dishes (those are magnets in the photo
below) & plastic horns:
<https://i.postimg.cc/pLXCzFxC/powerbeam-nanobeam.jpg>

Which, kind of, is why I'm a bit confused about what's the difference
o Between a "nanobeam" and a "nanobridge"

For now, based on your help, I'll call _this_ setup, a Nanobeam bridge!
<https://i.postimg.cc/vT0Krpfc/laptop-nanobeam-horn.jpg>
(More correctly, it's a "nanobeam bridge horn".) :)
--
Asking fact-based questions of strangers on the Usenet potluck for decades.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 19, 2019, 3:47:20 PM10/19/19

to

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:33:05 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:

> Not a big deal when speaking to lay persons. More of a deal when
> speaking to other "experts".

Hi Johann,

With respect to colloquial terminology...

As you can see from the numerous worthless trolls who infested this thread
o That they insist on proving they can't add any technical value whatsoever

It's clear this newsgroup is composed of extremely few of those "experts".
o There's you & Jeff Liebermann who know enough to be considered damn good

Nobody else posted showing anywhere near your current knowledge level
o Not even me - where at least I've used this stuff for years to do this
<https://i.postimg.cc/vT0Krpfc/laptop-nanobeam-horn.jpg>
In order to easily and vastly increase the range of my laptop.

Where the point of this thread was to ask others what distance they get.
o And to also show others how they can EASILY increase their range too

Where that picture shows just one of many ways to bridge their laptop
o Doing something as simple (& powerful) as connecting this to it
<https://i.postimg.cc/Hs0NWSKr/laptopnanobeam.jpg>

--
When Usenet works like it should, adults share useful information.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 20, 2019, 9:17:15 PM10/20/19

to

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 17:46:04 -0000 (UTC), Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

> I think I'll just call _both_ these things, "nano's"...
> <https://postimg.cc/rRFnrzTN>

Hi Dan Purgert,

One more thing, which surprised me just now, is that when I log into the
device that I've been calling a "PowerBeam" but which is labeled as a
"NanoBeam M2", the router firmware shows up everywhere as "PowerBeam".
<https://i.postimg.cc/905nFgxX/nanobeamnanobridge.jpg>

Specifically PowerBeam M2 or PowerBeam M2 400
<https://i.postimg.cc/Dzq9Bsjs/pb-m2-400-nanobeam.jpg>

Since it's unlikely I flashed the firmware, it could be that it came that
way, which would agree with the fact I've always thought it was a PowerBeam
from the day I had opened the box (as I recall, I think it was sent to me
by my WISP to replace a NanoBridge I had prior lent out to replace a bad
NanoBridge in the days we were swapping out NanoBridges due to its many
failures in the field).

Based on the references I already quoted, others had problems with the
NanoBridges that they didn't have with the PowerBeams, so again, I'd
recommend, for pjp, he start with the PowerBeams and work down from there.

Even so, a kilometer for WiFi is utter child's play for these CPE devices.
o Hence, for pjp to attain a puny kilometer over Wi-Fi is a given.

All pjp needs is to be able to "see" the antenna, where a bit of foliage is
OK (there are tons of references of people pushing through foliage despite
that there were a few trolls here who claimed it's not possible).

The signal strength is attenuated - but that's why you want the most
powerful equipment that fits the application, not the most anemic.

--
Bringing useful ideas to share on the public Usenet potluck for decades.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 20, 2019, 10:38:49 PM10/20/19

to

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:26:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_zone>
> If the system/signal is circular polarized, the Fresnel
> zone will have no effect

Hi Jeff,

I hope you feel better.

Thanks for the details on the Fresnel Zone calculations.
o Obviously all our stuff is typical Ubiquiti CPE

We often push through foliage, but, of course, we prefer not to.
o And even then, only for short distances or sparse foliage

> In other words, if you happen to be using circular (or at least
> elliptical) polarization on your link, you can forget about the
> Fresnel Zone.

It's nice to know that the polarizations matter.

> Most Wi-Fi hardware uses linear (vertical and
> horizontal) polarization.

We're only using Ubiquiti (& some old Surfnet Mikrotik) wifi CPE stuff.

> Also, if your path goes from a mountain top, to ground level in a
> valley, and you have to deal with a temperature inversion layer,
> chances are good that when the inversion layer is particularly
> noticeable and at some specific altitude, the signal will disappear
> for a while when it decides to wander off along the inversion line.

This "inversion layer" may be why some paths, which are about the same in
length (all less than ten miles for example), have vastly different signal
strength using the same rooftop devices to the same source access point.

> You might be able to visually see the other end of the link, but can't
> get a decent RF signal along the same path.

In my situation, I'm only about 6 miles from the WiFi AP, where I generally
get about -55 dBm on a Rocket M5 which, for me, is good enough.

It's mountain top to mountain top, so I'm not sure "if" an inversion layer
is involved, as the heights are within a thousand feet or so of each other.

> Also, please consider the effects of fade margin or system operating
> margin. This is how much stronger the signal happens to be than some
> reference level, usually somewhere near a minimum usable signal level
> or BER (bit error rate). This fade margin statistically translates to
> the amount of time per year your link will be down.
> SOM Reliability Downtime
> dB Percent per year
> 8 90 876 hrs
> 18 99 88 hrs
> 28 99.9 8.8 hrs
> 38 99.99 53 mins
> 48 99.999 5.3 mins
> 58 99.9999 32 secs

I don't profess to understand this stuff like you and Johann Beretta do,
but what I "think" you're calling the fade margin is what I colloquially
refer to as the "headroom", which is that I strive for a dozen decibels
above what works.

> For wi-fi, I like 20dB as a good but arbitrary fade margin for
> calculations.

I'll take 20 decibels above a working signal any day!

> Lastly, the various link calculations and data sheet specifications
> tend to be for the BEST case situation. In other words, reality sucks
> and your results will follow accordingly.

On this, I fully agree with you, in that, for example, the nanobridge M2
"should" work, and 'does' work, but for various degrees of "work".

When we went from the NanoBridge M2 to the NanoBeam M2, all of a sudden,
with no other change, we got 3 to 8 decibels better signal strength. Who
knows why or how.

Then, over time, we went to the much bigger Rockets, where we progressed
from the M2 to the M5 due to noise considerations, where, at the moment, at
about 6 miles distance for our WiFi access point, the Rocket M5 with a 34
dBi dish (maybe it's a 30 dBi dish?), our signal is fine at around -50 dBm
with good quality metrics and noise floors around 104dBm (as I recall).

Heck, since I feel uncomfortable guessing, let me log into the rooftop
radio and take a peek (I hate that "certificate error" we get every time)
o Signal strength = -56 dBM (chain0/chain1 -58/-59dBm
o Noise Floor = -104 dBm
o Transmit CCQ = 76.5%
o TX/RX Rate = 144.444 Mbps / 144.444 Mbps
o airMAX = enabled
o airMAX Quality = 97%
o airMAX Capacity = 75%

That has no problem using a WiFi access point about 5 to 6 miles away.

> Whatever happens along the
> path, environment, or with the equipment, will ALWAYS increase losses
> and decrease range. I can post (for find in the Usenet archives) how
> I do a link calculation if anyone wants it.

> Note: I had some surgery Monday, am recovering normally, but feeling
> lousy. I need some time to recover. Please forgive me if I don't
> reply to questions and comments immediately.

Please get better.

You've helped advise us many times over the years, which we appreciate.

If only the trolls would disappear, Usenet would be a lot more valuable.

--
Asking questions & sharing useful information on Usenet for decades.

Ed Pawlowski

unread,

Oct 20, 2019, 11:10:48 PM10/20/19

to

On 10/20/2019 10:38 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
.
>
> If only the trolls would disappear, Usenet would be a lot more valuable.
>

PerhSps they would if you STFU about them/ Maybe it is self inflicted.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 21, 2019, 1:21:31 PM10/21/19

to

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 09:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

>> Based on the references I already quoted, others had problems with the
>> NanoBridges that they didn't have with the PowerBeams, so again, I'd
>> recommend, for pjp, he start with the PowerBeams and work down from there.
>

> Nobody said to use a Nanobridge (which is a legacy device). I continue
> to hold the opinion that he should grab a pair of Nanobeam, either the
> $100 (or so) "gen2" NBE-5AC-19, or the $80 (or so) NBE-M5-19. They are
> perfectly suited to a kilometer shot, linking at 256QAM with as little
> as 12 dBi conducted.

Ah. Finally. Now you're doing the hard stuff, which is give good advice.
o It's trivially easy to quibble (that's why the trolls do it all the time)

The trolls can't actually add _any_ on-topic value to this thread topic.
o They post merely for their own amusement. Just watch.

What's harder is to advise people like pjp who have real-world questions.
o It seems to me that almost any Ubiquiti CPE will work for a kilometer.

Nothing wrong with those CPE choices for pjp, which others can also use:
o $100 NBE-M5-19
o $175 NBE-5AC-19

Even just one of these radios will vastly increase what you can do at home.

o Ubiquiti NBE-M5-19-US NanoBeam M Series 5 GHz 19dBi dual pol
<https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-NBE-M5-19-US-NanoBeam-19dBi-dual/dp/B00JEJDJ7E>

Here's what an ad says, for the people on the ng who aren't familiar:
o 5 Ghz frequency, 150+ Mbps Throughput, 15+ km range
o Networking Interface: 10/100 Ethernet Port, Enclosure: Outdoor UV Stabilized Plastic
o Power Supply: 24V, 0.5A PoE Adapter (Included), Power Method: Passive PoE (Pairs 4, 5+; 7, 8 Return)
o Wind Loading: 45.4 N @ 200 km/h (10.2 lbf @ 125 mph), Wind Survivability: 200 km/h (125 mph)
<https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-Networks-Nanobeam-NBE-M5-19-High-Performance/dp/B00JFQV6GC>

The reader may note the wind & the distance claims (15+km is ~10miles)
o Note we still don't know what country pjp is in (nor wind conditions).

This set is a bit more expensive but it's AC:
o Ubiquiti NBE-5AC-19 2-PACK 5GHz NanoBeam AC 19dBi Airmax AC Bridge CPE
airOS
<https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-NBE-5AC-19-2-PACK-NanoBeam-Airmax/dp/B015YN8VJO>

>> Even so, a kilometer for WiFi is utter child's play for these CPE devices.
>> o Hence, for pjp to attain a puny kilometer over Wi-Fi is a given.
>

> Even so, a pair of AirMAX radios do not use "WiFi" between them;
> especially the modern "5AC" line.

True.

It depends on how pjp (and others) set up their radios.
o For example, in this setup as an AP, it's using WiFi
<https://i.postimg.cc/XJChDCPr/spare-access-points.jpg>
o Likewise with this setup as a bridge (using latop Ethernet)
<https://i.postimg.cc/vT0Krpfc/laptop-nanobeam-horn.jpg>

For a puny kilometer LOS, WiFi will work just fine also, IMHO
o Assuming he can punch through whatever foliage he must punch through

>> All pjp needs is to be able to "see" the antenna, where a bit of
>> foliage is OK (there are tons of references of people pushing through

>> foliage despitethat there were a few trolls here who claimed it's not
>> possible).
>
> It's "possible", if one wants to accept the potential of spotty
> connectivity, and reduction of throughput by at least 50% (or more),
> depending on the thickness of the foliage.
>
> A few stray branches from a tree here and there? Certainly not the end
> of the world, but can cause issues on windy days.
>
> Trying to punch through 100 meters (or more) of thick foliage? The plan
> is bad, get another one.

We punch through foliage all the time Dan.
o So do lots of other people Dan.

Yes, it attenuates the signal, no doubt about it.
o But the claims by the trolls it can't be done are just not correct

To help pjp I posted _lots_ of articles on punching through foliage.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.electronics.repair/mfFaPuRWHmg/fG7iOl_kCAAJ

Can the trolls do that? Nope. They're all childish & sadistic.
o They can't & won't ever post anything purposefully helpful.

In their entire lives! (They love their worthless chitchat.)
o And yet, if they disappeared, the world would be a better place.

Worthless trolls infest any juicy public potluck they can find.

>> The signal strength is attenuated - but that's why you want the most
>> powerful equipment that fits the application, not the most anemic.
>

> Not only attenuated, but reflected and distorted. Which is why the
> correct approach is to cut a path (or follow an existing one, such as an
> access road), or go above the treetops, or below the foliage (if the
> forest density doesn't prevent that).

In contrast to the worthless childish sadistic posts of the trolls...

Here's a Fresnel Zones excerpt from Jeff Liebermann's posting recently:
o Where this is the kind of sharing Usenet is supposed to be about

*** *** *** *** ***
The purposefully helpful info below is from Jeff Liebermann (verbatim).
*** *** *** *** ***

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_zone>
If the system/signal is circular polarized, the Fresnel

zone will have no effect, because a deflected circular
polarized signal changes rotation upon deflection and the
result is to become virtually invisible to the receiver,
regardless of whether it arrives in phase or out of phase.
For example, a RHCP signal that hits a street, or a wall,
or anything else, then becomes a LHCP signal, and is
therefore invisible to the RHCP receiving antenna, regardless
of whether it arrives at the receiver in-phase or out-of-phase.

In other words, if you happen to be using circular (or at least
elliptical) polarization on your link, you can forget about the

Fresnel Zone. Most Wi-Fi hardware uses linear (vertical and
horizontal) polarization. With linear polarization, the problem is
that at various radii from the direct line of sight, the direct signal
cancels with a reflected wave, forming "rings" of high and low signal
levels. The rings with no signal or total cancellation are where the
reflected path is some multiple of 1/2 wavelength longer than the
incident path. This does NOT happen with circular polarization, where
the polarization changes "sense", where the polarization changed from
(for example) RHCP to LHCP when reflected. The receive antenna "sees"
both the incident RHCP wave, as well as the LHCP reflected wave.
However, since the receive antenna cannot hear the wrong "sense", it
only "sees" the incident RHCP wave and no cancellation occurs. So, if
you want to build a link that isn't ruined by Fresnel Zone effects,
think circular polarization.

Also, if your path goes from a mountain top, to ground level in a
valley, and you have to deal with a temperature inversion layer,
chances are good that when the inversion layer is particularly
noticeable and at some specific altitude, the signal will disappear
for a while when it decides to wander off along the inversion line.

You might be able to visually see the other end of the link, but can't
get a decent RF signal along the same path.

Also, please consider the effects of fade margin or system operating
margin. This is how much stronger the signal happens to be than some
reference level, usually somewhere near a minimum usable signal level
or BER (bit error rate). This fade margin statistically translates to
the amount of time per year your link will be down.
SOM Reliability Downtime
dB Percent per year
8 90 876 hrs
18 99 88 hrs
28 99.9 8.8 hrs
38 99.99 53 mins
48 99.999 5.3 mins
58 99.9999 32 secs

For wi-fi, I like 20dB as a good but arbitrary fade margin for
calculations.

Lastly, the various link calculations and data sheet specifications
tend to be for the BEST case situation. In other words, reality sucks

and your results will follow accordingly. Whatever happens along the

path, environment, or with the equipment, will ALWAYS increase losses
and decrease range. I can post (for find in the Usenet archives) how
I do a link calculation if anyone wants it.

Note: I had some surgery Monday, am recovering normally, but feeling
lousy. I need some time to recover. Please forgive me if I don't
reply to questions and comments immediately.

Elder Jones

unread,

Oct 21, 2019, 1:35:39 PM10/21/19

to

It seems that recently said:

> PerhSps they would if you STFU about them/ Maybe it is self inflicted.

Jeeez. You dont realize you are the trolls that should stfu you idiots.

Ed Pawlowski

unread,

Oct 21, 2019, 1:55:20 PM10/21/19

to

On 10/21/2019 1:21 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

> The trolls can't actually add _any_ on-topic value to this thread topic.
> o They post merely for their own amusement. Just watch.

No, it is to call attention to your arrogant behavior.

>

> Can the trolls do that? Nope. They're all childish & sadistic.
> o They can't & won't ever post anything purposefully helpful.
>
> In their entire lives! (They love their worthless chitchat.)
> o And yet, if they disappeared, the world would be a better place.
>
> Worthless trolls infest any juicy public potluck they can find.
>

The world would be a better place if you did not denigrate others. You
bring this on yourself. YOU CANNOT ignore it. As longs as you bring it
up, others will respond. You like the attention.

Ed Pawlowski

unread,

Oct 21, 2019, 1:57:16 PM10/21/19

to

If Arlen stops his silly stuff I'd stop too. He has to show his
superiority. Just as you had to reply. See how it works.

Troll

unread,

Oct 21, 2019, 3:59:10 PM10/21/19

to

On 10/21/2019 1:21 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
> The trolls can't actually add_any_ on-topic value to this thread topic.

> o They post merely for their own amusement. Just watch.

And you're off-topic and cross-posting to multiple groups.

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 21, 2019, 5:20:15 PM10/21/19

to

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:59:08 -0400, Troll wrote:

> And you're off-topic and cross-posting to multiple groups.

The useful takeaway is that we can extend our WiFi range by miles.
o Where fixing WiFi range is something people do all the time using this
<https://i.postimg.cc/D0vfqM3p/horns.jpg>

If you have no need to ever extend you WiFi range, so that you can paint
your pool or so that you can use your electronics far from the house, then
this thread is the wrong topic for you to post on.

For example, simply plugging this into your laptop, vastly extends range:
<https://i.postimg.cc/vT0Krpfc/laptop-nanobeam-horn.jpg>

Which group(s) do you think fixing/setting up WiFi is inappropriate on?

If you feel this thread is not for one of these groups, tell us why:
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-internet-wireless>
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-home-repair>
<http://tinyurl.com/sci-electronics-repair>

It will be interesting to hear your factual adult rationale.
--
It's likely the group(s) with all the childish trolls, is it not?

Arlen _G_ Holder

unread,

Oct 21, 2019, 5:22:15 PM10/21/19