Moo Bunny Amiga - thread "need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed"

need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

Direct link to this message

need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

Chris Payne. chris@planetoxygene.com.

c-67-166-196-71.hsd1.ga.comcast.net
hi Guys,

I'm moving to a 12 acre property and will be getting internet via satellite, but my mother-in-law will be around 300 feet away, is there a way - with an antenna maybe - that I can boost my wireless signal so that it will reach 300 feet outdoors?

Never done this before so .........

Thanks guys

Chris

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

tomazkid. pm@aw.net.

[83.209.35.190]
router for outdoor use perhaps?

Just make a search for it, there are plenty to choose from.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

Gregg. ..

[86.134.240.212]
> On Thursday, Jul 3, 2008, Chris Payne wrote:
> hi Guys,
>
> I'm moving to a 12 acre property and will be getting internet via
> satellite, but my mother-in-law will be around 300 feet away, is there a
> way - with an antenna maybe - that I can boost my wireless signal so that
> it will reach 300 feet outdoors?
>
> Never done this before so .........
>
> Thanks guys
>
> Chris

Mother-in-law 300 feet away? Just wire her up directly. You will all be a lot happier.

Gregg

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

XraalE. moo.

notrouble.cc.strath.ac.uk
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2008, Chris Payne wrote:
> hi Guys,
>
> I'm moving to a 12 acre property and will be getting internet via
> satellite, but my mother-in-law will be around 300 feet away, is there a
> way - with an antenna maybe - that I can boost my wireless signal so that
> it will reach 300 feet outdoors?

No. You can't do this one on the cheap. 300 feet is the maximum theoretical range limit of 8011.g, and you probably won't get a third of that on a good day, with ideal conditions. Your mother in law is just going to have to get her own internet connection.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

GK. malibannnospam@t-online.de.

mail.pulsion.com
On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, XraalE wrote:
> On Thursday, Jul 3, 2008, Chris Payne wrote:
> > hi Guys,
> >
> > I'm moving to a 12 acre property and will be getting internet via
> > satellite, but my mother-in-law will be around 300 feet away, is there a
> > way - with an antenna maybe - that I can boost my wireless signal so that
> > it will reach 300 feet outdoors?
>
> No. You can't do this one on the cheap. 300 feet is the maximum theoretical
> range limit of 8011.g, and you probably won't get a third of that on a good
> day, with ideal conditions. Your mother in law is just going to have to get
> her own internet connection.

I thought the maximum for WLAn (outside ) would be 300 meters. There are some Antennas arround, suitible for ranges about 3000 meters.

http://leoricksimon.blogspot.com/2006/12/biquad-ant-for-wlan.html

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

AdmV. AdmV.

212.219.87.3
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2008, Chris Payne wrote:
> hi Guys,
>
> I'm moving to a 12 acre property and will be getting internet via
> satellite, but my mother-in-law will be around 300 feet away, is there a
> way - with an antenna maybe - that I can boost my wireless signal so that
> it will reach 300 feet outdoors?
>
> Never done this before so .........
>
> Thanks guys
>
> Chris

If you start with a base wireless setup, firstly, you'll need to gather some intel, is it clear line of sight over the 300 metres, other wireless in between, and so on. Basically, there are a lot of options to do this, wireless repeaters, or powerful directional antenna's.

One example is this one.
http://uk.wifi-link.com/product.php?action=product&class1_id=1&class2_id=3&class3_id=158&product_id=1166

Supposedly good for up to 2 miles. Off course, there are a stack of caveats.
Ignore anyone saying it can't be done, it can, but you'll need to get the right gear, and make sure there are no showstoppers.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

B-Cnet. .@....

[4.245.82.10]
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2008, Chris Payne wrote:
> hi Guys,

> I'm moving to a 12 acre property and will be getting internet via
> satellite, but my mother-in-law will be around 300 feet away, is there a
> way - with an antenna maybe - that I can boost my wireless signal so that
> it will reach 300 feet outdoors?

> Never done this before so .........

> Thanks guys

Is there any particular reason why you can't wire it directly (local ordinance, intervening neighbors, etc.)? I ask because if you can wire it directly, that would be the more reliable method, and MIGHT be less expensive.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

XraalE. moo.

82-40-141-69.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, GK wrote:
>
> I thought the maximum for WLAn (outside ) would be 300 meters. There are
> some Antennas arround, suitible for ranges about 3000 meters.

Straight from wikipedia. "Wi-Fi networks have limited range. A typical Wi-Fi home router using 802.11b or 802.11g with a stock antenna might have a range of 32 m (120 ft) indoors and 95 m (300 ft) outdoors. " Of course, you can get more powerful antennas, but there is a limit: they can get hot, expensive, dangerous, or just downright illegal. With an extender, you *might* get 95m with 8011.g if the sun is in the quiet part of its 11 year cycle, it's night time, you live away from the north, and you have no neighbours. And you're very lucky. 300m? Not a chance in hell, not without some serious equipment.

Yes, it is possible to transmit it over 300m. No, it isn't worth it, it'll be full of practical difficulties, it will possibly violate strict laws on RF, and it probably will be more expensive than just a second internet connection.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

XraalE. moo.

82-40-141-69.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, B-Cnet wrote:
>
>
> Is there any particular reason why you can't wire it directly (local
> ordinance, intervening neighbors, etc.)? I ask because if you can wire it
> directly, that would be the more reliable method, and MIGHT be less
> expensive.

External cables are very expensive because they're weatherproof. And he's unlikely to be given planning permission anyway.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

tomazkid. pm@aw.net.

[83.209.35.190]
One option not mentioned yet:
Powercables.
http://www.xterasys.com/support/faq_powerline.htm

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

AdmV. AdmV.

i-194-106-52-118.freedom2surf.net
On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, XraalE wrote:
> On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, GK wrote:
> >
> > I thought the maximum for WLAn (outside ) would be 300 meters. There are
> > some Antennas arround, suitible for ranges about 3000 meters.
>
> Straight from wikipedia. "Wi-Fi networks have limited range.

wow, impressive.

> A typical
> Wi-Fi home router using 802.11b or 802.11g with a stock antenna might have
> a range of 32 m (120 ft) indoors and 95 m (300 ft) outdoors.

Apart from the fact they are different standards and offer wholly different performance. Why fucking bother posting if you are just going to talk shit?

" Of course,
> you can get more powerful antennas, but there is a limit: they can get hot,
> expensive, dangerous, or just downright illegal.

More FUD.

> With an extender, you
> *might* get 95m with 8011.g if the sun is in the quiet part of its 11 year
> cycle, it's night time, you live away from the north, and you have no
> neighbours. And you're very lucky. 300m? Not a chance in hell, not without
> some serious equipment.

Some of that is true. He's going to need uncluttered land and good LOS.

> Yes, it is possible to transmit it over 300m. No, it isn't worth it, it'll
> be full of practical difficulties, it will possibly violate strict laws on
> RF, and it probably will be more expensive than just a second internet
> connection.

If it works, and its quite possible depending on circumstances, that it will work. With decent antenna's at both ends, and clear line of sight, its quite possible to have it work.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

JoannaK. ..

ns1.ilmatar.net

I agree with AdmV here.

100 or 300 meters is NO technical problem with Wlans, IF there is clear line of sight between antennas. A friend of mine had (couple years ago) wlan-connection to local university (with permission) using external antennas. Measuring from map distance is about 1400 meters (over 4000 feet)

Yes, he had large directional antennas at both ends and indeed the connection was flaky at heawy rain and I'm quite sure it was against the RF-regulations (propably downright illegal) to use those, BUT the point is.. it worked well many years.

It was the older standard and tech (802.11b with Orinoco cards) so I have no idea how well those systems would work these days.. I do know though that my current wlan (802.11g that connected to ilmatar.net) seems to be working quite well trough couple concrete walls without any extra antennas.


On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, AdmV wrote:
> On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, XraalE wrote:
> > On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, GK wrote:
> > >
> > > I thought the maximum for WLAn (outside ) would be 300 meters. There are
> > > some Antennas arround, suitible for ranges about 3000 meters.
> >
> > Straight from wikipedia. "Wi-Fi networks have limited range.
>
> wow, impressive.
>
> > A typical
> > Wi-Fi home router using 802.11b or 802.11g with a stock antenna might have
> > a range of 32 m (120 ft) indoors and 95 m (300 ft) outdoors.
>
> Apart from the fact they are different standards and offer wholly different
> performance. Why fucking bother posting if you are just going to talk
> shit?
>
> " Of course,
> > you can get more powerful antennas, but there is a limit: they can get hot,
> > expensive, dangerous, or just downright illegal.
>
> More FUD.
>
> > With an extender, you
> > *might* get 95m with 8011.g if the sun is in the quiet part of its 11 year
> > cycle, it's night time, you live away from the north, and you have no
> > neighbours. And you're very lucky. 300m? Not a chance in hell, not without
> > some serious equipment.
>
> Some of that is true. He's going to need uncluttered land and good LOS.
>
> > Yes, it is possible to transmit it over 300m. No, it isn't worth it, it'll
> > be full of practical difficulties, it will possibly violate strict laws on
> > RF, and it probably will be more expensive than just a second internet
> > connection.
>
> If it works, and its quite possible depending on circumstances, that it
> will work. With decent antenna's at both ends, and clear line of sight, its
> quite possible to have it work.
>

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

XraalE. moo.

82-40-141-69.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, AdmV wrote:
> On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, XraalE wrote:

> > A typical
> > Wi-Fi home router using 802.11b or 802.11g with a stock antenna might have
> > a range of 32 m (120 ft) indoors and 95 m (300 ft) outdoors.
>
> Apart from the fact they are different standards and offer wholly different
> performance. Why fucking bother posting if you are just going to talk
> shit?

When lecturing people about talking shit, your mouth should generally not be full of it. Do you even know what you said? Or how it nonsensical it was as a response? b and g are not even different standards in how they transmit the data, only in how its modulated. Not that this has any relevance whatsoever to the matter in hand: g, and even n, are not trustworthy beyond a certain point regardless of LOS. Know why? Because you have a milliwatt radio source with a 12 cm wavelength, which is like expecting to see a small, very dim lightbulb from 300m away in the daytime. Inverse square law, AdmV? Care to understand some basic physics before acting the ass?

> " Of course,
> > you can get more powerful antennas, but there is a limit: they can get hot,
> > expensive, dangerous, or just downright illegal.
>
> More FUD.

Fine. You bullshit and massage your ego all you like, let him go and buy a really expensive transmitter, set himself back a few hundred on the tech, then find it either doesn't work at all, or it craps out every time it rains.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

XraalE. moo.

82-40-141-69.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, JoannaK wrote:
>
> I agree with AdmV here.
>
> 100 or 300 meters is NO technical problem with Wlans, IF there is clear
> line of sight between antennas. A friend of mine had (couple years ago)
> wlan-connection to local university (with permission) using external
> antennas. Measuring from map distance is about 1400 meters (over 4000
> feet)
>
> Yes, he had large directional antennas at both ends and indeed the
> connection was flaky at heawy rain and I'm quite sure it was against the
> RF-regulations (propably downright illegal) to use those, BUT the point
> is.. it worked well many years.

Look, this is getting silly now. I already admitted it was possible to do using expensive, illegal, flaky setups (even if AdmV somehow thinks he can buy a £30 d-link from Dixons and do it, as long as he gets magical line of sight). Is Chris going to copy your friend's setup for his mother in law? Is he going to be allowed to? Is he going to easily find the hardware? Are the planning permission people going to let him put up powerful antennae when the schools are already worrying about the health hazards of basic wifi?

So let's just tune back into reality FM here. Wifi isn't meant for this distance. It's not practical, it's not sensible. Next.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

AdmV. AdmV.

i-194-106-52-118.freedom2surf.net
On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, JoannaK wrote:
>
> I agree with AdmV here.
>
> 100 or 300 meters is NO technical problem with Wlans, IF there is clear
> line of sight between antennas. A friend of mine had (couple years ago)
> wlan-connection to local university (with permission) using external
> antennas. Measuring from map distance is about 1400 meters (over 4000
> feet)
>
> Yes, he had large directional antennas at both ends and indeed the
> connection was flaky at heawy rain and I'm quite sure it was against the
> RF-regulations (propably downright illegal) to use those, BUT the point
> is.. it worked well many years.
>
> It was the older standard and tech (802.11b with Orinoco cards) so I have
> no idea how well those systems would work these days.. I do know though
> that my current wlan (802.11g that connected to ilmatar.net) seems to be
> working quite well trough couple concrete walls without any extra antennas.

This is wholly doable.
The only real question is - is the 12 acre area built up. And secondly, does it have clear line of sight. As for some of the knuckle heads talking bullshit round here, its not even expensive to rig up something to do 300 metres in such circumstances.

A couple of cheap directional antenna's and I believe its workable. I gave a link to a cheap antenna that claimed it could hit 2 miles. Even when you point that out, you still get the knuckles heads squeeling.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

AdmV. AdmV.

i-194-106-52-118.freedom2surf.net
On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, XraalE wrote:
> On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, JoannaK wrote:
> >
> > I agree with AdmV here.
> >
> > 100 or 300 meters is NO technical problem with Wlans, IF there is clear
> > line of sight between antennas. A friend of mine had (couple years ago)
> > wlan-connection to local university (with permission) using external
> > antennas. Measuring from map distance is about 1400 meters (over 4000
> > feet)
> >
> > Yes, he had large directional antennas at both ends and indeed the
> > connection was flaky at heawy rain and I'm quite sure it was against the
> > RF-regulations (propably downright illegal) to use those, BUT the point
> > is.. it worked well many years.
>
> Look, this is getting silly now. I already admitted it was possible to do
> using expensive, illegal, flaky setups (even if AdmV somehow thinks he can
> buy a £30 d-link from Dixons and do it, as long as he gets magical line of
> sight).

Dixons ceased to exist, you mean PC world, or Curry's. That aside, you know we're talking additional antenna equipment, and you've know this since the beginning of the thread. Additional antenna's do not cost much today, and if you have line of sight, its do-able REALLY QUITE EASILY.

The REAL issue, is wether its an unobstructed 300 metre's.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

AdmV. AdmV.

i-194-106-52-118.freedom2surf.net
On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, AdmV wrote:
> On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, XraalE wrote:
> > On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, JoannaK wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with AdmV here.
> > >
> > > 100 or 300 meters is NO technical problem with Wlans, IF there is clear
> > > line of sight between antennas. A friend of mine had (couple years ago)
> > > wlan-connection to local university (with permission) using external
> > > antennas. Measuring from map distance is about 1400 meters (over 4000
> > > feet)
> > >
> > > Yes, he had large directional antennas at both ends and indeed the
> > > connection was flaky at heawy rain and I'm quite sure it was against the
> > > RF-regulations (propably downright illegal) to use those, BUT the point
> > > is.. it worked well many years.
> >
> > Look, this is getting silly now. I already admitted it was possible to do
> > using expensive, illegal, flaky setups (even if AdmV somehow thinks he can
> > buy a £30 d-link from Dixons and do it, as long as he gets magical line of
> > sight).
>
> Dixons ceased to exist, you mean PC world, or Curry's. That aside, you know
> we're talking additional antenna equipment, and you've know this since the
> beginning of the thread. Additional antenna's do not cost much today, and
> if you have line of sight, its do-able REALLY QUITE EASILY.
>
> The REAL issue, is wether its an unobstructed 300 metre's.

Not metres, feet.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

Anon. .

adsl-75-6-254-247.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net
On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, XraalE wrote:
> Look, this is getting silly now. I already admitted it was possible to do
> using expensive, illegal, flaky setups (even if AdmV somehow thinks he can
> buy a £30 d-link from Dixons and do it, as long as he gets magical line of
> sight).

Expensive? Directional antennas are not all that expensive. They're just assemblies of bits of metal and insulators. Illegal? Perhaps. Flaky? No, not if you have unobstructed LOS. The only flakiness is that mentioned earlier; during heavy rain you might have problems simply because water is not transparent in the relevant frequency bands.

> Is Chris going to copy your friend's setup for his mother in law?
> Is he going to be allowed to? Is he going to easily find the hardware? Are
> the planning permission people going to let him put up powerful antennae
> when the schools are already worrying about the health hazards of basic
> wifi?

There is no such thing as a 'powerful antenna'. There are powerful transmitters, but antennas do not alter the transmitted power. They are passive devices.

There are, however, such things as antennae which alter the spatial distribution of the broadcast power. Instead of broadcasting 360 degrees in a roughly horizontal plane, as most WLAN antennae are designed to do, one can use a highly directional antenna which concentrates most of the power along a line. Aim two of these antennae at each other, and you have a point-to-point WLAN link which can operate at much greater distance than standard WLAN.

You see, the standard range limits on WLAN are based on received power, in a system where most of the broadcast power is wasted (from the perspective of an individual receiver) by sending it out omnidirectionally. Focus the broadcast power on that one receiver and you gain range at the cost of no longer being able to move the endpoints around.

As for health hazards -- after your lightbulb example, you said "Care to understand some basic physics before acting the ass?" I believe that phrase applies here. Only somebody utterly ignorant of basic physics (in this case, the properties of non-ionizing EM radiation) would suggest that WiFi is a legitimate health hazard.

> So let's just tune back into reality FM here. Wifi isn't meant for this
> distance. It's not practical, it's not sensible. Next.

It is entirely practical and sensible with the appropriate antennae, and many people have made it work. If you want to be geeky, you can play around with making your own directional antennae for very little cash outlay. For example:

http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/448

However, you can also easily buy ready-made products designed for outdoor use. Google is your friend ("yagi wifi" are good keywords to start out with).

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

JoannaK. ..

ns1.ilmatar.net
On Saturday, Jul 5, 2008, Anon wrote:
> On Friday, Jul 4, 2008, XraalE wrote:
> > Look, this is getting silly now. I already admitted it was possible to do
> > using expensive, illegal, flaky setups (even if AdmV somehow thinks he can
> > buy a £30 d-link from Dixons and do it, as long as he gets magical line of
> > sight).
>
> Expensive? Directional antennas are not all that expensive. They're just
> assemblies of bits of metal and insulators.

Last time I checked +24dB parabolic antenna (normal short stub is +3 or less) costs under 100USD.. Some low-loss cox is needed though, but it's not that expensive. and with (approx) 40dB gain increase (two antennas minus cabling losses) that distance ain't any issue at all.

I would suggest having a bit smaller antennas and to test with laptop.. +14 or +18 antennas (yagi) would be a lot smaller and considerably cheaper.

> Illegal? Perhaps. Flaky?
> No, not if you have unobstructed LOS. The only flakiness is that mentioned
> earlier; during heavy rain you might have problems simply because water is
> not transparent in the relevant frequency bands.

Or many big trees.. :)

> > Is Chris going to copy your friend's setup for his mother in law?
> > Is he going to be allowed to? Is he going to easily find the hardware? Are
> > the planning permission people going to let him put up powerful antennae
> > when the schools are already worrying about the health hazards of basic
> > wifi?
>
> There is no such thing as a 'powerful antenna'. There are powerful
> transmitters, but antennas do not alter the transmitted power. They are
> passive devices.
>
> There are, however, such things as antennae which alter the spatial
> distribution of the broadcast power. Instead of broadcasting 360 degrees
> in a roughly horizontal plane, as most WLAN antennae are designed to do,
> one can use a highly directional antenna which concentrates most of the
> power along a line. Aim two of these antennae at each other, and you have
> a point-to-point WLAN link which can operate at much greater distance than
> standard WLAN.
>
> You see, the standard range limits on WLAN are based on received power, in
> a system where most of the broadcast power is wasted (from the perspective
> of an individual receiver) by sending it out omnidirectionally. Focus the
> broadcast power on that one receiver and you gain range at the cost of no
> longer being able to move the endpoints around.
>
> As for health hazards -- after your lightbulb example, you said "Care to
> understand some basic physics before acting the ass?" I believe that
> phrase applies here. Only somebody utterly ignorant of basic physics (in
> this case, the properties of non-ionizing EM radiation) would suggest that
> WiFi is a legitimate health hazard.
>
> > So let's just tune back into reality FM here. Wifi isn't meant for this
> > distance. It's not practical, it's not sensible. Next.
>
> It is entirely practical and sensible with the appropriate antennae, and
> many people have made it work.

And.. it's better than no broadband connection at all.. EarlierI posted about my frend's situation, for some **** reason local telco didn't want to deliver ADSL to that area of town (under 2km of University .. no less).

I newer knew why they didn't get the adsl back then (they have one now), perhaps there were some *** old phonelines?

> If you want to be geeky, you can play
> around with making your own directional antennae for very little cash
> outlay. For example:
>
> http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/448
>
> However, you can also easily buy ready-made products designed for outdoor
> use. Google is your friend ("yagi wifi" are good keywords to start out
> with).

Or, one could use old Pringles-tube or round tincan (just pick right size) :)

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

XraalE. moo.

82-40-141-69.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Saturday, Jul 5, 2008, Anon wrote:
> Expensive? Directional antennas are not all that expensive. They're just
> assemblies of bits of metal and insulators. Illegal? Perhaps. Flaky?
> No, not if you have unobstructed LOS. The only flakiness is that mentioned
> earlier...

He is very, very unlikely to have unrestricted LOS. He is very unlikely to find this equipment in his usual places. From past threads he is started, Chris is not only the most technically minded, but he isn't generally interested in going searching for things that he can't readily find. This is what's so silly. This isn't a technical discussion on the merits of whether it is possible to use wifi over long distances; it's about whether you can do it in the average situation using standard indoors wifi routers and transmitters.

> ...during heavy rain you might have problems simply because water is
> not transparent in the relevant frequency bands.

Which in the UK, is generally much of the year.

> There is no such thing as a 'powerful antenna'. There are powerful
> transmitters, but antennas do not alter the transmitted power. They are
> passive devices.

I know. I'm being layman.

> There are, however, such things as antennae which alter the spatial
> distribution of the broadcast power. Instead of broadcasting 360 degrees
> in a roughly horizontal plane, as most WLAN antennae are designed to do,
> one can use a highly directional antenna which concentrates most of the
> power along a line. Aim two of these antennae at each other, and you have
> a point-to-point WLAN link which can operate at much greater distance than
> standard WLAN.

Sure, very nice for open plains. For a housing estate? No.

> You see, the standard range limits on WLAN are based on received power, in
> a system where most of the broadcast power is wasted (from the perspective
> of an individual receiver) by sending it out omnidirectionally. Focus the
> broadcast power on that one receiver and you gain range at the cost of no
> longer being able to move the endpoints around.
>
> As for health hazards -- after your lightbulb example, you said "Care to
> understand some basic physics before acting the ass?" I believe that
> phrase applies here. Only somebody utterly ignorant of basic physics (in
> this case, the properties of non-ionizing EM radiation) would suggest that
> WiFi is a legitimate health hazard.

I know that, you know that. Unfortunately governments don't know that. Wifi already has some restrictions on their use, and expect that to get worse, regardless of any scientific evidence to the contrary.

However, before I completely move on, not all health hazards from EM are caused by ionisation. I'm sure you already know, but microwave range just happens to have the same frequency as the hydrogen bond, which is why microwave ovens work and wifi craps out in rain. The human body absorbs microwave energy. Sure, it's in the milliwatt range. But what if it starts to scale up? I wouldn't want my neighbour putting a 20 watt antenna (sorry, transmitter) pointing through my house to his friend three miles away.

> It is entirely practical and sensible with the appropriate antennae, and
> many people have made it work. If you want to be geeky, you can play
> around with making your own directional antennae for very little cash
> outlay. For example:
>
> http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/448
>
> However, you can also easily buy ready-made products designed for outdoor
> use. Google is your friend ("yagi wifi" are good keywords to start out
> with).

The fact that this thread exists at all is proof enough of the futily of stating this advice.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

AdmV. AdmV.

i-194-106-52-118.freedom2surf.net
On Sunday, Jul 6, 2008, XraalE wrote:
> On Saturday, Jul 5, 2008, Anon wrote:
> > Expensive? Directional antennas are not all that expensive. They're just
> > assemblies of bits of metal and insulators. Illegal? Perhaps. Flaky?
> > No, not if you have unobstructed LOS. The only flakiness is that mentioned
> > earlier...
>
> He is very, very unlikely to have unrestricted LOS.

Its a 12 acre site.

> He is very unlikely to
> find this equipment in his usual places.

Much of this equipment is available in wireless outlets

> From past threads he is started,
> Chris is not only the most technically minded,

You mean he isn't, but you've got everything else wrong in thread thus far, why break the habit of a lifetime.

> but he isn't generally
> interested in going searching for things that he can't readily find. This
> is what's so silly. This isn't a technical discussion on the merits of
> whether it is possible to use wifi over long distances; it's about whether
> you can do it in the average situation using standard indoors wifi routers
> and transmitters.
>
> > ...during heavy rain you might have problems simply because water is
> > not transparent in the relevant frequency bands.
>
> Which in the UK, is generally much of the year.

He is not in the UK.

> > There is no such thing as a 'powerful antenna'. There are powerful
> > transmitters, but antennas do not alter the transmitted power. They are
> > passive devices.
>
> I know. I'm being layman.

No, you are being an asshole. As usual.

> > There are, however, such things as antennae which alter the spatial
> > distribution of the broadcast power. Instead of broadcasting 360 degrees
> > in a roughly horizontal plane, as most WLAN antennae are designed to do,
> > one can use a highly directional antenna which concentrates most of the
> > power along a line. Aim two of these antennae at each other, and you have
> > a point-to-point WLAN link which can operate at much greater distance than
> > standard WLAN.
>
> Sure, very nice for open plains. For a housing estate? No.

Did he talk about a housing estate. No. Amazing.


> > You see, the standard range limits on WLAN are based on received power, in
> > a system where most of the broadcast power is wasted (from the perspective
> > of an individual receiver) by sending it out omnidirectionally. Focus the
> > broadcast power on that one receiver and you gain range at the cost of no
> > longer being able to move the endpoints around.
> >
> > As for health hazards -- after your lightbulb example, you said "Care to
> > understand some basic physics before acting the ass?" I believe that
> > phrase applies here. Only somebody utterly ignorant of basic physics (in
> > this case, the properties of non-ionizing EM radiation) would suggest that
> > WiFi is a legitimate health hazard.
>
> I know that, you know that. Unfortunately governments don't know that. Wifi
> already has some restrictions on their use, and expect that to get worse,
> regardless of any scientific evidence to the contrary.
> However, before I completely move on, not all health hazards from EM are
> caused by ionisation. I'm sure you already know, but microwave range just
> happens to have the same frequency as the hydrogen bond, which is why
> microwave ovens work and wifi craps out in rain. The human body absorbs
> microwave energy. Sure, it's in the milliwatt range. But what if it starts
> to scale up? I wouldn't want my neighbour putting a 20 watt antenna (sorry,
> transmitter) pointing through my house to his friend three miles away.
>
> > It is entirely practical and sensible with the appropriate antennae, and
> > many people have made it work. If you want to be geeky, you can play
> > around with making your own directional antennae for very little cash
> > outlay. For example:
> >
> > http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/448
> >
> > However, you can also easily buy ready-made products designed for outdoor
> > use. Google is your friend ("yagi wifi" are good keywords to start out
> > with).
>
> The fact that this thread exists at all is proof enough of the futily of
> stating this advice.

The reason the thread exists is someone asked a question. And the answer for 300 feet wi-fi, is yes, its easily doable, depending on a few things, far more than merely technical basis, is simply does it have clear LOS, and an unobstructed range, and if so, 300 feet is EASY and workable. Yes, you will need a couple of antenna's, and a little research.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: need to send wireless signal 300+ feet - help needed

XraalE. moo.

82-40-141-69.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
On Sunday, Jul 6, 2008, AdmV wrote:
>
> Its a 12 acre site.

Which is obviously some kind of 12, completely flat acre parking lot. I'm sure. Yeah, he didn't *say* it was, or anything about trees, houses, or line of sight, but I'm sure it is, because AdmV's assumptions are far more valid than mine.

Either that or he's AdmV's an obnoxious fucktard.

> Much of this equipment is available in wireless outlets

A "wireless outlet"? Is that next to the completely flat left land scissors shop in the 12 acre parking lot? Or are you still talking with shit in your mouth?

> You mean he isn't, but you've got everything else wrong in thread thus far,
> why break the habit of a lifetime.

Not that I've actually been wrong within my own context (whether or not people choose to stay within it, rather than go into wild flights of fantasy about transmitters that can cook eggs), as far as a habit of a lifetime is concerned, the crass half-witted habit of AdmV to unload angry-man hostility on a strawman of entirely his own creation is clearly evident. What's wrong, hard day? Or just not getting it off lately?

> He is not in the UK.

I didn't say he was.

> No, you are being an asshole. As usual.
>
> Did he talk about a housing estate. No. Amazing.

Did he mention that his 12 acre site didn't have buildings? No. Amazing. Fuck you.

> The reason the thread exists is someone asked a question.

And the reason he asked the question is because he couldn't be arsed going to ask google first, which is usually the case when the information is easily found, as you have been kind enough to point out in your usual sweet-natured, even tempered way. And without even getting foam on the screen this time.

> And the answer
> for 300 feet wi-fi, is yes, its easily doable, depending on a few things,
> far more than merely technical basis, is simply does it have clear LOS, and
> an unobstructed range, and if so, 300 feet is EASY and workable. Yes, you
> will need a couple of antenna's, and a little research.

Cool. He can't say I didn't warn him.

Reply to this

Short list view

Previous thread - Next thread

Back to Moo Bunny

It is now: 11:46:50 GMT.
Moo Bunny brand Message Boards
[General Stuff (Today)] [Space (Aug 22)] [Anime (2007)]
[WalkingFish (May 2008)] [Cabinet of Curiosities (Nov 2007)] [Portland (May 2008)]
Retro and Exotic Computing
[Atari ST (2007)] [WeirdMac (2007)]
Amiga Boards
[Amiga Section (Today)]
John Shepard's Projects
[Rastport (02:36:39)] [Squid's Amiga Page & Rumor Mill (n/a)] [Radiographite:: Art by John Shepard (Feb 2008)]