Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 17:52:06 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:32:39 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: Given the price of real-estate, and the cost-of-living in Santa Cruz, given that you are apparently single, given that you are apparently not overly happy about the climate, have you ever considered relocating to a more amenable part of the country? Actually, I have done some online looking at some possible places to relocate. The exodus from California seems to be mostly to the northern and eastern states: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/04/691145-californians-left-last-year-what-state-did-they-go-to/ Texas seems to be the largest, with a predictable reaction: "Why Texans Dont Want Any More Californians" https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/the-truth-about-the-california-exodus/605833/ There are also a fair number of YouTube videos on "Why you don't want to move to [insert name of state]". After I work out the migration pattern, the next step would be to decide if I want to move to where everyone is going, or if I want to avoid those places. Right now, I don't know. I originally moved to Santa Cruz from the Smog Angeles area in about 1973 because it was less crowded. I wanted to get away from the crowds. Before Covid-19 drastically cut down on the traffic earlier this year, Santa Cruz traffic had become as bad as Smog Angeles over the past 47 years. If I move, I don't want to become part of that problem. However, the main reasons I haven't moved somewhere else is that I don't have any urgent need to move, and that my house has some problems that will either be too expensive or difficult to fix economically. It's a can of worms I don't want to open at this time. There's also the problem of my lack of longevity. If my family history is an indication of how long I'll live, I probably won't live long enough to enjoy the change of location. When we moved 12 years ago (just across the township), it was akin to shedding a skin. The divestiture of unneeded *stuff* was pretty immense and very cleansing. We have been vary careful not to re-acquire since. It really does make a difference. But, a more distant move in your case may solve a number of financial, physical and logistic issues all at once. I know the feeling. Several of my friends have become minimalists. Unfortunately, I've been the recipient of some of their accumulated junk. I would say they were most successful in what they were trying to accomplish. For me, it's quite different. While I'm not quite a packrat, I do tend to accumulate "stuff". Since I don't have a family and have yet to immerse myself in public service and volunteer organizations, I tend to replace these with gadgets, things, gizmos, and goodies. I fix things, I enjoy the work, and would happily spend the rest of my continuing to save "stuff" from a premature demise in a landfill. I guess I'm an eco-freak of sorts. Moving wouldn't change much. Best of luck with it. My wife is retired, my identified date is June 30, 2022 when my major tenant ends its lease. Until then, my wife and I are busy 'feathering our nests" so that when we retired and our income drops by six figures we will have few expenses and no debt on what amounts to be two very nearly maintenance-free houses. Nicely done. Sounds like you have things well planned and organized. I thought my plans were similarly set. Then, I had to deal with some nasty medical problems, a pandemic, wildfires, and an evacuation. The assumptions I made in planning my retirement have not gone up in smoke yet, but are likely to do so considering the circumstances I itemized in a previous rant. May your ration of luck survive and hopefully, you won't need to deal with my problems. Take care! Thanks. Time for a fast dinner and off to a friend to fix a Brother sewing machine and a Baby Lock. As long as there are things that I can fix and that need fixing, I should be ok. Jeff, Austin TX., Portland Maine, and Madison WI. are terrific cities. If safety, beautiful scenery and incredible restaurants are top on your list, I'd consider Portland. |
#82
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 06:40:42 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 01:52:13 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell wrote: Enjoy your retirement, my friend! Thanks. However, it's not easy to find enjoyment while trying to adjust to Covid-19, dysfunctional government at all levels, impending economic collapse, limits on travel, increasing weather related problems, an increasing homeless problem, and probably increased taxes to keep the economy afloat. Health problems and advancing age increasingly limit my activities. I can survive on Social Security payments and the 80% that Medicare provides, but suspect those benefits to will eventually be reduced by inflation as the government resorts to printing money to finance its activities. I expect my "retirement" to more closely resemble living on unemployment with the added bonus of having no debt and a modest bank account. Since I have no children or immediate family, I could easily have obtained a reverse mortgage on my house, and lived off the cash. However, the recent fires in California might make that impossible due to increasing difficulties obtaining replacement value fire insurance, a basic requirement for a reverse mortgage. In other words, the long term prospects for an enjoyable retirement look rather grim. However, before I blunder on into this dismal future, I have an immediate problem to deal with. I brought about 75% of the contents of my formerly palatial office to my house when I moved out. There was no time to do sorting, only time to box everything and move. I moved it in small increments because I have no garage or storage space at the house and because I had to carry the boxes up about 50 stairs. The boxes are now piled up both inside and outside the house. Much of it is covered with ash that is still falling from the trees due to the recent nearby fires. Rain will likely arrive in a few weeks and nothing outside is protected. I need to deal with that immediately, but can't during the current heat waves. At least I won't be bored looking for something to do. Incidentally, it's now 6AM and 75F (24C) outside. NWS predicts the temperature to rise to 101F (38C) today. I might be able to do 2-3 hrs of box shuffling today. It's likely that the local power company, PG&E, will intentionally disconnect the power to prevent falling power lines from starting more fires and to reduce the load on the power grid from air conditioning. Thanks again for the hopeful thoughts, but this is not the retirement that I had planned and is unlikely to be enjoyable. I see alchemy as your next hobby: Turning all that computer stuff into Gold! In which case you don't have to move any of. Rain won't hurt it. I know it's hard to let go, but ..... -sw |
#83
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 22:19:23 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
I see alchemy as your next hobby: Turning all that computer stuff into Gold! In which case you don't have to move any of. Rain won't hurt it. I know it's hard to let go, but ..... So I was curious and youtubed it....This guy got $1,900 worth (about an ounce) of .99% gold from 6 pounds of clipped OLDER PCB connectors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3cqZ5kqEB4 I suspect getting chemistry glass and HCL delivered to the Santa Cruz mountains may be difficult and raise some eyebrows. Or used to. It's kinda pointless to manufacture domestic meth anymore since it's so cheap from Mexico, so they may have deregulated that stuff. Food for thought... -sw |
#84
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 20:50:05 -0500, Chuck
wrote: Jeff, Austin TX., Portland Maine, and Madison WI. are terrific cities. If safety, beautiful scenery and incredible restaurants are top on your list, I'd consider Portland. Austin, TX. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=move+to+austin+texas Portland, Maine. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=move+to+portland+maine Madison, WI. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=move+to+madison+wisconsin I dunno. It appears to me that some residents are resorting to making YouTube video to discourage immigrants. I can almost visualize being greeted by a lynch mob. So much for safety. Incidentally, I haven't been to a restaurant since late February 2020. I really miss them. I used to hang out at the local coffee shops meeting others with like interests. Zoom meetings are a poor substitute. On the other hand, my food, entertainment, and gasoline budgets have been dramatically reduced, I've lost some weight, I'm sloooooowly learning how to cook, and I've forgotten how to calculate a tip. Eventually, the pandemic will end, and I'll probably return to my former decadent and lavish lifestyle. Until then, I think I can survive without restaurants, fast food, and coffee shops. More seriously, I've looked into selling my house and buying something cheaper elsewhere. I'd rather not go into detail, but it's not going to work for me. If I discount my house and convince a buyer to buy the house as-is (after a full disclosure), the difference between the discounted selling price and the purchase price of a replacement house, will be rapidly consumed by the sales commissions, moving expenses, repairs, deposits, etc. At best, it would be break even. Also, I don't like cities. I grew up in Smog Angeles, which is an example of a city to avoid. If I do eventually move elsewhere, it will probably be to a small rural town similar to where I'm now living. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Lomond,_California If I want better entertainment, shopping, medical facilities, and restaurants offered by the big city, I'll just drive there. I don't need to live there. Thanks for the suggestions. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#85
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
Sqwertz wrote:
It's kinda pointless to manufacture domestic meth anymore since it's so cheap from Mexico, so they may have deregulated that stuff. Afraid not. The stupid federal regulation about restricting the amount of pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) that can be sold to an individual and requiring it be sold blister packs still exists. |
#86
Posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On 10/14/20 7:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:25:08 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote: On 10/6/20 4:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: To get some decent speeds, 5GHz instead of 2.4GHz. Generally speaking, yes. Practically speaking you can do several hundred mbps over a 2.4 link. You just need to widen the channel. While there are 2.4GHz routers available that have a 40MHz channel bandwidth setting, I prefer not to use it because it reduces the available bandwidth to other users on 2.4GHz. If one is sufficiently clueless to use a 40 MHz channel set to CH6, it will effectively trash most of the 2.4GHz band. Since Wi-Fi pollution can be symmetrical, it also makes the receiver susceptible to more interference. Stay with 20MHz channel bandwidth on 2.4GHz. In dense environments, I agree. In rural areas, interference may not be a factor. In extremely rural areas, interference PROBABLY won't be a factor. On the other foot, the minimum channel bandwidth on 5GHz is 40MHz (depending on channel selected) with an option to use 80MHz or 160MHz for 802.11AC and AX (Wi-Fi 6). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels#5_GHz_or_5.9_GHz_(802.11a/h/j/n/ac/ax) With 1024-QAM, 802.11AX can theoretically do 1.2Gbits/sec in a 160MHz channel. Your mileage will certainly be less. No.. The minimum 5GHz channel bandwidth is 5MHz. Not sure where you are coming up with 40MHz as a minimum. Out of several dozen transmitters, I only have two set to 40MHz (backhauls). The rest are set to 20MHz with a couple at 10Mhz. My gear (Ubiquiti) supports 5, 8, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 80 Mhz wide channels. Anyway, the performance limiting factor is usually interference from co-channel users and noise sources. You could have all the bandwidth in the world, the most efficient modulation scheme, maximum legal RF power, and still not be able to communicate very well or far if there is an interference source nearby. In other words, one needs to do more than just "widen the channel". Once again, sometimes. Sometimes ALL you need to do is widen the channel. |
#87
Posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On 10/14/20 12:45 AM, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:23:10 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote: Clearly you don't do this for a living. That is an absolutely correct assessment. You can advise the OP better than I on potential Fresnel Zone issues, as he's apparently asking how best to paint a LOS location 800 feet away with the transceiver on a pole I believe. You can run the math to explain to him how high that pole may need to be. (We do that stuff by trial and error - but you may know the math better.) Please advise the OP on the math so he knows how high to mount the radio. All he has to do is search google for "fresnel zone calculator" At 1,056 feet (0.2 miles) the Fresnel for 5.1 GHz is 7.1 feet. (for 5.8 Ghz it would be 6.7 feet). The higher the freq, the smaller the zone. You can intrude the fresnel by 40% (max), but I try to avoid even that. |
#88
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 23:12:08 -0500, Sqwertz
wrote: So I was curious and youtubed it....This guy got $1,900 worth (about an ounce) of .99% gold from 6 pounds of clipped OLDER PCB connectors. That's a very good yield from older PCB edge connectors, which were plated with 50 microns gold plating. These days, the commercial stuff is more like 5 microns. (1 micron = 1µm = 1 millionth of a meter). Therefore, the yield is much less. I have a small forge that I use mostly for aluminum and brass casting, but has been used to melt gold. Also, part of my house once looked like a chemistry lab, but that's long gone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3cqZ5kqEB4 Nice video. He points out and demonstrates some of the common problems with gold recovery. In terms of gross profit and time burn, I've found it best to just sell the scrap gold and let someone else deal with the chemicals and gold brokers. I just emptied my safe deposit box so here is a photo of some gold extraction that I did about 40 years ago. http://www.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/index.html#Gold-01.jpg At about $1,900/oz (spot price), they should be worth $2,470. However, it's not so simple. The two blobs are not pure 24K gold. I don't recall exactly, but I think they're only about 90%. I need to refine them to at least 99% before I can sell them as 24K. Then, I have to have them assayed by a certified lab for about $135. I don't know how much dealer will take, but I'm sure it's too much. https://santacruzgold.biz However, I may have done something dumb. I couldn't find anyone to buy my collection of old PCB's (printed circuit boards). It was quite a pile that filled the back of my Subaru. I failed to find anyone who wanted to buy it all. 1.5 months of office rent was about equal to what I might obtain from the sale or from gold extraction. So, I donated the entire mess to a local charity run recycler: https://www.greybears.org/our-programs/recycle/electronics-recycling/ I would have dragged everything home and stored it until I had time to do another gold extraction, but there was no time and no storage space. I suspect getting chemistry glass and HCL delivered to the Santa Cruz mountains may be difficult and raise some eyebrows. Not a problem. I've had a chemistry lab of sorts in my house for years without incident. Over the years, we've also had various meth labs and recreational chemical factories operating nearby. The glassware and chemicals are not much of a problem. Disposing of the waste and cleaning up the mess after the chemists move out, are very real problems. Or used to. It's kinda pointless to manufacture domestic meth anymore since it's so cheap from Mexico, so they may have deregulated that stuff. I prefer not to explain, but if I can contrive a believable and documented reason for purchasing chemicals, it's not a problem. Food for thought... Thanks, but I don't think that eating the stuff is a good idea. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#89
Posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 12:05:43 -0700, Johann Beretta
wrote: On 10/14/20 7:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:25:08 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote: On 10/6/20 4:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: To get some decent speeds, 5GHz instead of 2.4GHz. Generally speaking, yes. Practically speaking you can do several hundred mbps over a 2.4 link. You just need to widen the channel. While there are 2.4GHz routers available that have a 40MHz channel bandwidth setting, I prefer not to use it because it reduces the available bandwidth to other users on 2.4GHz. If one is sufficiently clueless to use a 40 MHz channel set to CH6, it will effectively trash most of the 2.4GHz band. Since Wi-Fi pollution can be symmetrical, it also makes the receiver susceptible to more interference. Stay with 20MHz channel bandwidth on 2.4GHz. In dense environments, I agree. In rural areas, interference may not be a factor. In extremely rural areas, interference PROBABLY won't be a factor. Those are fair assumptions. However, I've been surprised a few times. For example, I couldn't figure out why I was getting miserable 2.4GHz performance in an isolated farm house that was 2 miles from the nearest neighbor or potential source of RF interference. I finally got around to doing a site survey with a spectrum analyzer and directional dish antenna. I wound that there was a point to point 2.4GHz wireless link between an office building about 5 miles away, and an isolated pump house about 3 miles away. The farm house was directly in the line of sight. At first, I simply changed channels (1, 6, or 11), but the pump house link changed channel every time the link faded or was obstructed. So much for adaptive channel selection. So, I switched to 5GHz, and avoided the problem. Yes, interference can be a problem in the middle of nowhere. On the other foot, the minimum channel bandwidth on 5GHz is 40MHz (depending on channel selected) with an option to use 80MHz or 160MHz for 802.11AC and AX (Wi-Fi 6). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels#5_GHz_or_5.9_GHz_(802.11a/h/j/n/ac/ax) With 1024-QAM, 802.11AX can theoretically do 1.2Gbits/sec in a 160MHz channel. Your mileage will certainly be less. No.. The minimum 5GHz channel bandwidth is 5MHz. Correct. However, 5MHz is not the occupied bandwidth of the signal. It varies by modulation mode and type. For example, conventional 2.4GHz 802.11b/g is typically about 22MHz wide and occupies four 5MHz channels. The 2.4GHz band is 83.5MHz wide. Therefore, if it is only possible to fit 3 non-overlapping 22MHz wide signals in the band before running out of bandwidth. This is where the recommended CH1, 6, and 11 comes from. Incidentally, picking a channel that lands in between CH1, 6, or 11 will end up overlapping the two adjacent channels and interfere with both. On 5 GHz, it's the same story. You divide the available bandwidth by the occupied bandwidth of the signal to get the number of available non-overlapping channels. Diagrams such as these show how it works: https://www.google.com/search?q=802.11+channel+bandwidth&tbm=isch Not sure where you are coming up with 40MHz as a minimum. Out of several dozen transmitters, I only have two set to 40MHz (backhauls). The rest are set to 20MHz with a couple at 10Mhz. You can use 20, 40, 80, or 160 on *PARTS* of the 5GHz band. 10 MHz is available but I don't know any situation where it might be useful. The bandwidth situation is a mess on 5GHz. I don't have the time to explain where all the various protocols, power levels, bandwidth restrictions, and standards, DFS radar protection, etc, fit together. Also, things get really strange with 802.11ax. See Fig 9: https://www.ni.com/en-us/innovations/white-papers/16/introduction-to-802-11ax-high-efficiency-wireless.html My gear (Ubiquiti) supports 5, 8, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 80 Mhz wide channels. In what country? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels#5_GHz_or_5.9_GHz_(802.11a/h/j/n/ac/ax) Go to the column marked United States. Notice that 20 MHz is the minimum allocated occupied bandwidth. 10 MHz is on the chart, but it look like no country is using it. 5, 8, 30, and 50 MHz are not on the chart. Anyway, the performance limiting factor is usually interference from co-channel users and noise sources. You could have all the bandwidth in the world, the most efficient modulation scheme, maximum legal RF power, and still not be able to communicate very well or far if there is an interference source nearby. In other words, one needs to do more than just "widen the channel". Once again, sometimes. Sometimes ALL you need to do is widen the channel. Yep. However, if a wide bandwidth is such a great solution, why doesn't everyone just setup their routers to use as much occupied bandwidth as possible, or perhaps just use the entire band? Sure, there are benefits, but compromises must be made to use a larger part of the band? Hint: Think about how long a radio needs to be transmitting in order to deliver (for example) 1 MByte of payload data. If it can deliver the data twice as fast and therefore uses half the air time, that's that much more air time for other users of the bandwidth used. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#90
Posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 12:12:01 -0700, Johann Beretta
wrote: All he has to do is search google for "fresnel zone calculator" At 1,056 feet (0.2 miles) the Fresnel for 5.1 GHz is 7.1 feet. (for 5.8 Ghz it would be 6.7 feet). The higher the freq, the smaller the zone. The question was for an 800ft link. 800ft / 5280ft/mile = 0.152 miles Please adjust your computation accordingly. You can intrude the fresnel by 40% (max), but I try to avoid even that. That depends on whether the intruding material is absorptive or reflective. You can get a way with much less clearance if the signal is absorbed. Yes, the signal level goes down, but it also stays down and does not vary. However, if it's reflective, then it will refract (bend) part of the signal, creating the opportunity for fades, nulls, cancellation, etc. It can also create reinforcement and stronger signal levels, but those tend to change radically if anything moves. 40% intrusion is a usable number for real links, but only works if you have a sufficiently large fade margin, also known as SOM (system operating margin). 20 dB would be a good minimum. I carry 20dB and 30dB attenuators in my toolbox. If the system still works reasonably well with 20dB loss inserted at one antenna, it will probably be reliable. If it dies completely, you need a bigger antenna or more transmit power. While I'm ranting on the topic, fade margin (or SOM) is related to reliability (or downtime): SOM dB Reliability % Downtime per year 8 90 876 hrs 18 99 88 hrs 28 99.9 8.8 hrs 38 99.99 53 minutes 48 99.999 5.3 minutes 58 99.9999 32 seconds 99% reliability might sound great, but that means your link will be useless for 1% of the year, or 3.6 days per year. Don't go below 20 dB fade margin, which is 70 hours of downtime per year. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#91
Posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On 10/18/20 1:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
The question was for an 800ft link. 800ft / 5280ft/mile = 0.152 miles Please adjust your computation accordingly. Yep. And the calculator I used could handle tenths. That's why I calculated for .2 miles. I couldn't do 0.152 miles. |
#92
Posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On 10/18/20 1:25 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
My gear (Ubiquiti) supports 5, 8, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 80 Mhz wide channels. In what country? See: The United States. I'm using official firmware on a US radio. I had heard that newer radios were limited to 10MHz as the smallest slice, but older gear is grandfathered in. 10 MHz is available but I don't know any situation where it might be useful. As for the usefulness of 10Mhz, well... Seriously? I can think of all sorts of things.. Namely anything where you need 70mbps or less. Or, in a really crowded area, you might be able to find 10Mhz of clean spectrum.. My own link to my WISP is 10Mhz (I have my own dedicated AP). Delivers me everything I need without having another 10Mhz just polluting the area. I could probably get away with 5Mhz, but I've upgraded to the AC line and that is no longer an option. It is, however, still an option in the M series. |
#93
Posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 19:32:40 -0700, Johann Beretta
wrote: On 10/18/20 1:25 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: My gear (Ubiquiti) supports 5, 8, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 80 Mhz wide channels. In what country? See: The United States. I'm using official firmware on a US radio. I had heard that newer radios were limited to 10MHz as the smallest slice, but older gear is grandfathered in. I'll assume a Ubiquiti M5 radio. I have some really old M5-Bullet radios, with firmware that can't be upgraded to the latest greatest. However, my house is a mess resulting from my office move, and I'm not inclined to dig one out and check what it can do. I did some Googling and found that the Rocket-M5 does support 5 and 10 MHz channel bandwidth, so I'll assume that your unspecified M5 version also does the same. https://community.ui.com/questions/Channel-width-max-bandwidth-and-max-clients-per-AP/cdf020af-0d11-4982-8c0d-785e3e1c2030 The article conveniently explains part of the logic behind using wider channels and mostly answers my question from my previous rant, which you deleted and/or ignored. Basically, the approximate math is simple. If your WISP configures their access point for a 40 MHz bandwidth channel and the ISP has 10 full time connected users, the system can deliver no more than 4 Mbits/sec to each user. If the WISP reduces the occupied bandwidth to 5 MHz, and still has 10 full time users, each one will only get 0.5 MBits/sec, which is inadequate. If your WISP doesn't have much of a user load, or doesn't overload the channel with too many wireless users, 5 MHz occupied bandwidth will work just fine. Note that this simplistic channel loading estimate ignores various factors that will either increase or decrease the channel loading. For example, I'm assuming that the channel usage is sustained at the maximum available rate, which is sometimes a bad assumption. This becomes really messy if the streaming media provider adjusts their deliver rate based upon error rate levels returns from the viewers computer or media player. Also, there is a problem. This assumes that the WISP has exclusive use of the channel and that there are no other users on the same channel. Any co-channel users will appear as interference causing the WISP access point to lower the data rate to a level where the BER (bit error rate) is high enough to produce usable throughput. In many cases, this throughput reduction can be drastic, but for this discussion, I'll assume it reduces throughput to half. That means that delivering a given amount of data will double the air time (how long the transmitter occupies the channel) and delivery will therefore take twice as long. Actually, it's longer because the packet size is also reduced, but to keep things simple, I'll ignore that. The result of slowing down due to interference is that every users connection slows down, and data takes twice as long to deliver. Instead of ten happy Netflix viewers, the ISP support phone will have 10 irate customers complaining of buffering. So, what can an WISP do? Well, it could not load the channel to the maximum capacity for a given occupied bandwidth. It could add another radio on a different channel and move some of the customers there. Or, it could just size the occupied bandwidth setting to match the actual channel loading with some overhead left for interference and high usage peaks. So, why did your WISP use 5 MHz. None of the advanced 5GHz mode beyond 802.11a are going to work well crammed into a 5 MHz occupied bandwidth channel. I'm not sure if 802.11a will work in a 5 MHz channel. 802.11ac requires an 80 MHz channel. It would be interesting to sniff the traffic between your Ubiquiti M5-something radio and the WISP access point with a Wi-Fi Analyzer (Android) or something similar. My guess(tm) is you're running 802.11a. So, what kind of performance can one expect in a 5 MHz wide channel compared to a 20 MHz channel? That would 1/4th the speed *OR* double the range due to increase in power density (dBm/Hz). That's why it was attractive to your WISP. Cut the data rate in half yields a range increase of sqrt(2) or 1.414. That's also why the FCC and other regulators seem to have purged 5 and 10 MHz occupied bandwidth from the rules-n-regs. It's much too close to narrow band modulation and carries some of the detrimental effects of narrow band modulation. It was fine when the typical 5 Ghz signal used 20 MHz modulation. However, with 40, 80, and 160 MHz now available, the narrower occupied bandwidths had to go. 10 MHz is available but I don't know any situation where it might be useful. As for the usefulness of 10Mhz, well... Seriously? I can think of all sorts of things.. Namely anything where you need 70mbps or less. Or, in a really crowded area, you might be able to find 10Mhz of clean spectrum.. My own link to my WISP is 10Mhz (I have my own dedicated AP). Delivers me everything I need without having another 10Mhz just polluting the area. I could probably get away with 5Mhz, but I've upgraded to the AC line and that is no longer an option. It is, however, still an option in the M series. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#94
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 05:03:41 -0500, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
Sqwertz wrote: It's kinda pointless to manufacture domestic meth anymore since it's so cheap from Mexico, so they may have deregulated that stuff. Afraid not. The stupid federal regulation about restricting the amount of pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) that can be sold to an individual and requiring it be sold blister packs still exists. Yeah, that does. But I was referring to the glassware and the HCl. -sw |
#95
Posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 19:26:40 -0700, Johann Beretta
wrote: On 10/18/20 1:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: The question was for an 800ft link. 800ft / 5280ft/mile = 0.152 miles Please adjust your computation accordingly. Yep. And the calculator I used could handle tenths. That's why I calculated for .2 miles. I couldn't do 0.152 miles. That's an input error of (0.2 - 0.152) / 0.2 = 24% Perhaps using the online calculator which I provided might have been a better idea? Or maybe a different Fresnel Zone calculator? https://www.google.com/search?q=rf+fresnel+zone+calculator This is interesting and might explain a few things: http://radiomobile.pe1mew.nl/?Calculations:Propagation_calculation:Fresnel_zone s Since the F2 zone is detrimental to receive signal level, antenna heights are often selected so that F1 is an unobstructed path and F2 is obstructed by a hill or the earth bulge along the path. In other words, the area around the F1 line is where you get your usable signal, while the area around the F2 line is where you get your problems. The reason you can get away with 40% incursion into the F1 zone is that reflecting objects on or near the F1 line will add, not cancel. I guess it really should be something like: 0.0 to 0.6 F1 = OK. Direct path. 0.6 F1 to 1.4 F1 = problems due to destructive cancellation. 1.4 F1 to 0.6 F2 = OK 1.4 F2 to 0.6 F3 = problems due to destructive cancellation. I'm not too sure the exact coefficients are correct. I'll check (later). In other words, there is a "band" straddling the various odd numbered Fresnel Zone lines which define areas that should not contain reflective objects. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#96
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 23:58:58 -0500, Sqwertz
wrote: On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 05:03:41 -0500, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: Sqwertz wrote: It's kinda pointless to manufacture domestic meth anymore since it's so cheap from Mexico, so they may have deregulated that stuff. Afraid not. The stupid federal regulation about restricting the amount of pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) that can be sold to an individual and requiring it be sold blister packs still exists. Yeah, that does. But I was referring to the glassware and the HCl. -sw To the best of my knowledge, access to chemistry glassware is not restricted in California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_chemistry In the United States, some regions have stringent regulations concerning the ownership of chemicals and equipment. For example, Texas once required the registration of even the most basic laboratory glassware.[20] However, this requirement was repealed on June 6, 2019.[21] Just buy what you need online: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=chemistry+glassware https://www.amazon.com/Glassware-Labware/b?node=318049011 Or, you can make your own: https://www.google.com/search?q=make+your+own+laboratory+glassware I have some glass tubing which I use to make the small stuff. However, I haven't had much luck with glass blowing. For HCL, if you can't get the real stuff, buy some muriatic acid and distill it: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+purify+muriatic+acid I've never had to do this but it doesn't seem difficult. (famous last assumption). -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#97
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
https://www.actsretirement.org/lates...endly%20states.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1.../9911913_zpid/ Pennsylvania is a tax-friendly state for retirees. The second link is for a $200,000 house in our general neighborhood (note the high taxes and that it is a twin, however). b Few wildfires. Quite diverse in the best sense of that word. And a 2,936 mile move would definitely scrape off the barnacles. If you prefer more country-style living, but with college-town amenities nearby, there is central PA (near our summer house). https://www.coveredbridgesrealty.com...mbia-county-pa Bloomsburg is a college town. Then, of course, there is always Ranger, TX. https://www.zillow.com/ranger-tx/ Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#98
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
|
#99
Posted to sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On 10/17/2020 9:12 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 22:19:23 -0500, Sqwertz wrote: I see alchemy as your next hobby: Turning all that computer stuff into Gold! In which case you don't have to move any of. Rain won't hurt it. I know it's hard to let go, but ..... So I was curious and youtubed it....This guy got $1,900 worth (about an ounce) of .99% gold from 6 pounds of clipped OLDER PCB connectors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3cqZ5kqEB4 I suspect getting chemistry glass and HCL delivered to the Santa Cruz mountains may be difficult and raise some eyebrows. Or used to. It's kinda pointless to manufacture domestic meth anymore since it's so cheap from Mexico, so they may have deregulated that stuff. Food for thought... -sw Interesting video, thanks, I live near downtown SC I wonder the same. |
#100
Posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
|
#101
Posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On 10/18/20 9:32 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
The article conveniently explains part of the logic behind using wider channels and mostly answers my question from my previous rant, which you deleted and/or ignored. Basically, the approximate math is simple. If your WISP configures their access point for a 40 MHz bandwidth channel and the ISP has 10 full time connected users, the system can deliver no more than 4 Mbits/sec to each user. If the WISP reduces the occupied bandwidth to 5 MHz, and still has 10 full time users, each one will only get 0.5 MBits/sec, which is inadequate. If your WISP doesn't have much of a user load, or doesn't overload the channel with too many wireless users, 5 MHz occupied bandwidth will work just fine. Note that this simplistic channel loading estimate ignores various factors that will either increase or decrease the channel loading. For example, I'm assuming that the channel usage is sustained at the maximum available rate, which is sometimes a bad assumption. This becomes really messy if the streaming media provider adjusts their deliver rate based upon error rate levels returns from the viewers computer or media player. I wasn't deliberately ignoring anything. I was just picking/choosing what to reply to. (Limited time and all that jazz) I disagree with the 4mb/s for each user though. Clients with less than ideal signals should be put into low priority on the AirMAX scheduling priority. This prevents them from hogging up transmission time. (for M radios - AC radios apparently are able to handle that with whatever programming logic UBNT has come up with as you no longer have to specify priorities) There area also various modulating schemes to help with bottlenecking (TDMA, CDMA, and various new ones I'm sure). My own tests flat out contradict that 4mb/s bs.. I can deliver a lot more to customers than that.. And yes, these are netflixers so they're using bandwidth constantly. Maybe back in the day this was true, but that post you referenced is 5 years old and it is no longer the case. |
#102
Posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,sci.electronics.repair,alt.internet.wireless
|
|||
|
|||
WiFi out to 800 feet
On 10/18/20 9:32 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
simple. If your WISP configures their access point for a 40 MHz bandwidth channel and the ISP has 10 full time connected users, the system can deliver no more than 4 Mbits/sec to each user. If the WISP Just out of curiosity, where are y'all getting this idea that a 40MHz signal can only deliver 40mbps? The 40MHz signals I use will deliver at 300MB/s (roughly) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
No wifi but a wifi hotspot | Home Repair | |||
What is cheapest Wifi-enabled device I can buy to test wifi access? | UK diy | |||
where can I find an 800 x 800 200 shower tray? | UK diy |