Just curious how far your Wi-Fi access point is from your de

[dpb]

On 10/17/2019 12:40 AM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
....

Most of this thread covered silly semantics, and then the post you
responded to covered legal limits, where I apologize for those two:

On semantics, the precise words don't matter when you're trying to get
something done - ....
....

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

 

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

 

[Johann Beretta]

On 10/17/19 8:26 AM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

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.

It's not the same. A ski mask is for skiing. You can't accidentally use
it to rob a bank.

An uneducated person can buy a powerbeam, intend to use it for wifi, and
accidentally (because they don't know better) choose the wrong option in
the configuration, and break the law.

It's a drop down menu. It can be clicked on accidentally. These devices
are not, and have never been, meant for the general public. The rockets
are even worse.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 05:19:14 -0000 (UTC), Arlen _G_ Holder
<_arlen.george@halder.edu> wrote:

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.

<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.

Bah Humbug(tm).
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@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]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 07:15:37 -0300, pjp wrote:

Ok, that sounds good. From what I've read I really only need to buy two
routers and put them on attennas that can see each other. My house's
chimney is easily one location and I'm sure there'a some suitable tree
down by the rv. I'd only need/use it with the generator runnng so power
is not an issue.

All I really want is to be able to access shared media from house's pcs
and not need to resort to filling up some thumbdrive or external hd
instead. BTW - you can think of the RV more as a camp, it's never moved.

NOTE TO THE VERY MANY PEOPLE WHO ENDLESSLY QUIBBLED ABOUT TERMINOLOGY:
o Now is your golden chance to actually add adult value to help pjp

Hi pjp,

Thanks for confirming that (a) there is 120VAC at the RV, and that (b) the
RV is stationary, which means a radio mounted in a tree pointed at the
house, within a few hundred feet (or so) of the RV, is feasible.

Only one more thing matters, but not all that much.
o What is the "compute device" at the RV end that will use the Internet?
a. Is it just a desktop or laptop (in which case, nothing else is needed)?
b. Or, will it be cellphones and tablets (which don't have Ethernet ports)?

If it's a single compute device with an Ethernet port, then you don't need
anything else at the RV but the treetop radio. If you want multiple devices
at the RV which are all Ethernet enabled, then you just need a small
switch. If you want cellphones and tablets at the RV, then you need an
access point, most easily obtained by plugging in a spare SOHO router.

Up to you - as you'll get DHCP over Ethernet out of the treetop radio.

BTW, the fact you have AC power at the RV is good, but I don't see why you
couldn't power the radio with the RV battery, but I haven't tried that -
but plenty of people use solar to power radios (I just don't have any
experience with it).

If you're gonna plug in a switch (or router) at the RV, then you likely
will need AC power, so it's nice you have the AC generator handy at the RV.

All you need then is a matching set of two radios, and a length of Ethernet
cable to get to the radios (where the power over Ethernet, which comes with
the radios, is almost always placed within a meter or two of the AC power).

HOUSE RADIO:
1. You plug in the house POE to AC power (near the home SOHO router).
2. One end of the house POE goes into the home SOHO router.
3. The other end of the house POE goes into the rooftop radio.

RV RADIO:
1. You plug in the RV POE to AC power (usually very near the RV).
2. One end of the house POE goes into the rv radio.
2. The other end of the RV POE goes into a laptop (or into a spare router).

If we think of signal in terms of the one-way "Internet flow", it goes...
a. From the house modem to the house POE to the house radio over cat5
b. From the house radio to the rv radio over the air
c. From the rv radio to the rv POE to the RV laptop over Ethernet

I can't imagine that every radio on the Ubiquiti site wouldn't treat a puny
kilometer as child's play, but I've learned, over time, that the most
powerful radio is usually the most satisfactory (I can't really explain
why).

You can choose whether you want 5Ghz or 2GHz, depending on, well, I'm not
sure, where I can only think of two reasons, each of which counteract:
A. If you need to penetrate "some" foliage, the 2.4GHz is better
B. If there are other homes nearby, then the 5GHz is less noisy.

Given almost any radio on the Ubiquiti site would work, I'd suggest you go
there and look at your price tolerance, where I'd start by looking at the
aforementioned $100 PowerBeam radios first, since they're kind of in the
middle of the pack: <https://www.ui.com/airmax/powerbeam/>

Here's a two-pack, for example, at Amazon:
<https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-PBE-M5-400-2-pack-PowerBeam-AirMAX/dp/B00UZ03UUW/>

Where you can certainly pay something like half that price for other stuff:
o $47 Ubiquiti NanoStation locoM2 2.4GHz Indoor/Outdoor airMax 8dBi CPE
<https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-NanoStation-locoM2-2-4GHz-Outdoor/dp/B00DCNRTAG/>

But I have no experience with that 'smaller stuff', but where, I'm sure,
others on this ng can let you know if those $50 devices work well enough
for you outdoors (which they may very well do well for you ... I just don't
have any experience with them myself).

I don't think you can go lower than $100 total cost for the two radios
though, and, as someone noted, there are "nuts and bolts" things you may
need (like cat5 cable to run up to the roof & tree) that I'm not counting,
mostly because we always do just fine with screws and nails lying around,
and where Ubiquiti pretty much gives you everything you need but the J-arm
or pole itself.

Having said all that, the WISP guys (or the self-described "communinication
techs" on this newsgroup (quite a few quibbled about decibels, for
example), should be able to advise you on what actual POWER you need at a
puny 1 kilometer, as I don't bother with the calculations since all my
equipment is overkill for such puny distances to thow WiFi.

BTW, this is a guy who apparently outfits RV parks with WiFi:
<http://gnswifi.com/campground_wifi.htm>
His site "may" have ideas for you specific to RVs.

NOTE TO THE VERY MANY PEOPLE WHO ENDLESSLY QUIBBLED ABOUT TERMINOLOGY:
o Now is your golden chance to actually add adult value to help pjp

--
Hint: Silence is what we typically get from these "semantic specialists"
when it comes down to actually providing on-topic adult technical value.

 

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 10/18/2019 12:19 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:

Hint: Silence is what we typically get from these "semantic specialists"
when it comes down to actually providing on-topic adult technical value.

Arlen has to make a disparaging remark in most every post. Makes him
feel better about himself.

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

Arlen has to make a disparaging remark in most every post. Makes him
feel better about himself.

Just don't feed the troll, and all will be well.


Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 23:19:27 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote:

It's not the same. A ski mask is for skiing. You can't accidentally use
it to rob a bank.

Hi Johann,

Let's focus our insight on helping people do what we do all the time, OK?
O We throw WiFi easily for a dozen miles, without blinking, Johann

They can certainly paint an RV with WiFi when it's only a mere km away!

My point is that when pjp asks for help in throwing WiFi a kilometer from
his house to his RV, I don't endlessly harp on what there is zero evidence
for - which is that I feel it's suspicious that his RV is parked a
kilometer away from his house - I don't like that - I think that's
suspicously - highly suspicious in fact - so - instead of helping the guy -
I endlessly harp on WHY he parks his RV a kilometer way from the house.
o Maybe he's parking his RV a kilometer from his house to break the law!

You think that way, and that's OK.
o But I just think the guy wants to paint the RV with Internet.

We think differently, Johann.
o I'm more trusting than you Johann. More innocent.
o I'm always purposefully helpful.

Which is why it bothers me that the common trolls who infest this newsgroup
are the opposite of me, which is that nothing they posts adds any value
whatsoever - and - even ignorning them - doesn't stop them from infesting
the USenet potluck (just look at what the trolls wrote in this thread).

An uneducated person can buy a powerbeam, intend to use it for wifi, and
accidentally (because they don't know better) choose the wrong option in
the configuration, and break the law.

I think differently than the trolls (e.g., I never troll).
o I think differently than the "semantic expert" (e.g., I add value).

And, I think differently than anyone who harranges us on "legal" issues
o When there is zero evidence that pjp is attempting to break the law

It doesn't even occur to me to think the way you think.
o Since you clearly think that way - all you have to do is say it once.

And then we can get back to adding value on Usenet.
o Deal?

The guy needs advice on how to throw his WiFi a kilometer
o From his house to his RV
o Where there is only a "hole" in the trees back at the RV
o And where the RV has generator power.

One place you can help advise pjp (and the rest of us as a result) is how
you'd recommend he "power" the tree radio at the RV.

For example, would you recommend just mooching off the RV battery?

It's a drop down menu. It can be clicked on accidentally. These devices
are not, and have never been, meant for the general public. The rockets
are even worse.

Let's stop harranging on the legality issue.
o You said it once; we agreed ... can we move on to helping people?

Another question you can help advise pjp on, and, in the process, the rest
of us learn from your advice, is how much power loss is calculatable for
penetrating less-than-dense foliage a distance of a kilometer.

I documented in this post just now a case where someone went about 500 feet
through what appears from the pictures to be all foliage, where I'm curious
what you think, from your experience, is possible to penetate with typical
Ubiquiti equipment such as that described in this post just now:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.electronics.repair/mfFaPuRWHmg/6TZUzxc1CAAJ>

--
The whole point of Usenet is for adults to helpfully share on-topic value.

 

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 15:31:27 -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.)

Have a link to the article (or did I miss it in a previous message)?
I enjoy reading these, when they show up in random searches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_Wi-Fi#Venezuela
Because, naturally, there's always someone squeezing an extra
kilometer out of their link.
*******
And I was imagining pjp doing this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instalacion_de_antena_en_Napo,_Iquitos_(Marzo_2007).JPG
You can see his tower, clears the treetops.

Hi Paul,

Other than you and perhaps Dan, notice how fantastically SILENT the very
many "semantic experts" are when pjg pactually needs real-world advice...

There are three types of people on this thread:
1. Purposefully helpful people adding value (a handful, at most)
2. What I'll call "semantic experts" (who post nothing of value)
3. People accusing everyone else of being a troll (they're all trolls)

All the trolls can do, is accuse everyone else of being a troll
o Which, you have to admit, is kind of classically humoroous.
(if it wasn't so sad that they "think" they're adults)

All most of those "semantic experts" can do, is play silly games.
o That's why I come down hard on them - because they're not at all helpful

As for your humorous photo, if that's pjp climbing that antenna, then pjp
is a lot younger than most of us Usenet'sters seem to be!

Back to help pjp, I am envisioning, for pjp, more like something like this:
<https://www.flamelily.co.uk/2018/11/Community-broadband-project-in-Worcestershire/>

Where they threw WiFi from a pub roof to a tree 1.8 miles (3 Km) away.
o With speeds of about 115Mbps at 5500MHz with about -62dBm signal strength

They seem to have used two "LiteBeam" radios to connect their community.
<https://www.ui.com/airmax/litebeam-ac/>

Which, pjp can get, today, in a two-pack for $65 each:
<https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-LiteBeam-LBE-5AC-Gen2-US-airMAX-450Mbps-2PACK/dp/B0752Y57SB>

They mounted the "source" $65 Ubiquiti Litebeam 5AC to the roof
<https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-LBE-5AC-GEN2-US-LiteBeam-Wireless-Bridge/dp/B06Y2JH7PV>

Just as pjp would, and the "receiver" twin on the trunk of a tree.
<https://www.amazon.com/LiteBeam-LBE-5AC-Gen2-Ethernet-Protector-High-Speed/dp/B07GT2Y5GN?>

o Given a puny 7dBm transmit setting where I don't know the antenna dBi:
<https://www.flamelily.co.uk/img/blog/airos.png>

Despite the fact that even William Unruh implied radio waves can't
penetrate 'solid' structures (as did a few other "semantic experts"), pjp
can penetrate trees to his RV, but penetrating foliage always makes the
calculations far more dicey.

BTW, here's a group of folks who explained how to get through the foliage:
<https://community.ui.com/questions/Wireless-Bridge-through-some-trees/1da09a2d-43c4-455d-8650-72c6891ed13c>
Where they went about 500 feet from the house to the barn thru trees:
<https://img.community.ui.com/d1ab1f62-229f-42fb-8584-b6396ce142f8/questions/1da09a2d-43c4-455d-8650-72c6891ed13c/3946f29d-c5f5-45cb-9d91-76fa4e648e55>

--
Always posting purposefully helpful adult technical value to share on the
Usenet potluck, at the same time as pointing out what the worthless
"semantic experts" post, which is of absolutely zero adult value.

 

[Markymark]

Why all the hateful disparaging remarks?

 

[Roger Blake]

On 2019-10-18, Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net> wrote:

Because Arlen just can't handle being corrected when he's wrong.
Much like our current President.

At least our current President is not addicted to peppering everything
he says with annoying bullet points.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Fox's Mercantile]

On 10/18/19 4:32 PM, Markymark wrote:

Why all the hateful disparaging remarks?

Because Arlen just can't handle being corrected when he's wrong.
Much like our current President.


--
"I am a river to my people."
Jeff-1.0
WA6FWi
http:foxsmercantile.com

 

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 00:52:31 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message <MPG.381368e588f9bdb732@news.eternal-september.org>, pjp
pjpoirierislocated@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
Ok, that sounds good. From what I've read I really only need to buy two
routers and put them on attennas that can see each other. My house's
chimney is easily one location and I'm sure there'a some suitable tree

So, basically, you have two points - probably up a height (chimney or
tree) - that are both visible from the other, and they're about 1 km
apart.

From what others have said, you can use high-gain (directional) aerials,
provided you reduce the source power, but you're allowed to double the
aerial "gain" for every db of input power you drop - so you can use 8
times the aerial gain and only reduce the input power by half, thus in
effect getting 4 times the _effective_ power (in one direction). So you
could use a 1 watt transmitter into a 6 dB aerial, giving the effect of
4 watts in one direction; or a ˝ watt transmitter into a 15 dB aerial,
giving the effect of 8 watts in one direction.

down by the rv. I'd only need/use it with the generator runnng so power
is not an issue.

Not _that_ much of an issue anyway, as we're only talking half a watt or
less! Well, OK, the rest of the equipment will use more than that.

All I really want is to be able to access shared media from house's pcs
and not need to resort to filling up some thumbdrive or external hd
instead. BTW - you can think of the RV more as a camp, it's never moved.

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.

Hi J.P. Gilliver,

I think you haven't been reading all the posts, which is ok.
o So I will just gently "set you straight" on some of your advice to pjp

Where, I THANK YOU immensely for being purposefully helpful
o As you are wont to be (which is a good thing - as you're an adult)

The main takeaway of of this thread, for this newsgroup, is that the far
"better" equipment costs about the same as the "crappy" consumer stuff.

That is, for the same amount of money pjp would spend for anemic consumer
stuff at the local box stores, online, if pjp knows what he needs, he can
get far better "pro" equipment.

Also bear in mind, _all_ the CPE we're talking about is weatherproof.
o The consumer stuff might not be weatherproof.

As you know, we're always purposefully helpful, so I first want to THANK
YOU for being helpful to pjp (9/10s of these posts are purposefully
unhelpful, always from the _same_ set of people who post for amusement).

To attempt to answer your question indirectly, pjp 'can' use anything that
has the power to go one kilometer with a result on each end of, oh, say,
-60 dBm at each radio (other things being considered such as SNR,
sensitivity, etc.).

To answer your question directly, as far as we can tell, the transmit power
of most $100 home routers is miniscule, at around 15 dBm, where the omni's
attached add only about 3 dBi (at most) for a rather puny less than 20
decibels EIRP.

If we pick the midrange aforementioned $100 Ubiquiti PowerBeams,
<https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-PowerBeam-High-Performance-airMAX-PBE-5AC-Gen2-US/dp/B071DV94TJ>

Then pjp gets, for about the price of a home router, something like ten to
one hundred and maybe even one thousand times the power, where we'd have to
look at the specific equipment to make the exact calculation.

Hence, I would argue, for the same price, why bother with what will end upo
being crappy equipment with crappy signal when you can have good equipment
with good signal?

I can't see the distance - 1 km represents an extra about 3 ěs - causing
a problem;

In practice, the latency & jitter on this stuff seems to NOT be a problem
for most purposes, where, for example, my Internet comes from 6 miles away
and the aren't many issues (VOIP is a bit jittery though).

the cabling up to the aerials probably more so, since most
wifi kit I'm aware of is USB, and USB is limited to a few metres

THERE IS ZERO USB INVOLVED!
o None.

Nobody is talking USB (not that I'm aware of, anyway).

All the "cabling" is cat5 (or cat6), outdoor, grounded if you like.
o The cabling works for hundreds of feet, so it's not an issue.

A bigger issue with long cabling is that animals chew it up, but in pjp's
case, the cabling is only going to be a hundred feet (or so) on each end.

Let me sketch it out for you to understand that there is zero USB involved!
1. Internet signal starts at pjp's modem (or router) home Ethernet port.
2. With cat5, it goes from that modem (or router) to the POE.
3. The POE is usually right next to the router (in almost all cases).
4. From that POE, another cat5 cable goes up to the rooftop radio.
--- that's it for the house ---
A. At the treetop radio, there's a cat5 cable running down the tree
B. That cat5 runs to the POE inside the RV (most likely)
C. That POE has another cat5 that goes to the laptop Ethernet port
--- that's it for the rv ---

If, perchance, pjp wants to innervate a handful of laptops
a. Then the cat5 goes into a switch inside the RV
b. Where pjp can plug in a handful of laptops over cat5

If, perchance, pjp wants to feed a handful of mobile devices
c. Then the cat5 goes into a spare Wi-Fi router inside the RV
d. Where all the mobile devices connect to the AP of that router

It's really that easy.
o Notice NOTHING is USB.

Nothing.

and it
sounds like your chimney/tree are going to be further from the equipment
than that, so you'd need either USB extension "cables" (not really
"cables" as I understand the term, as they have a lump of electronics in
them), or some out of the ordinary home-style wifi kit, that uses
ethernet rather than USB.

Hi J.P. Gilliver.
It's just normal cat5 cable.
o The outdoor stuff should be better quality, and grounded

But it's still just normal cat5 stuff.
o There are no "electronics" in the middle to speak of.

The "POE", which is almost always right next to the router at home, and in
the RV, is all the "electronics" you need.

Each radio comes with its own POE which is usually 12 to 24 volts at 1 to 2
amps (they are essentially interchangeable in most cases).

Some POE's have the reset switch built into them, which is handy because
you can reset the radio from the ground without having to climb the tree!

I _suspect_ that'll still be cheaper than
"professional" WISP kit, but I'm not sure.

Hi J.P. Gilliver,

I appreciate that you're one of the few here who are actually trying to
purposefully help the OP, so I'll explain the whole point of this thread.

The professional equipment is "about the same price" as consumer stuff.
o And yet, the professional stuff is hundreds of times better

For one, it's all weatherproofed.
o For another, the power difference attainable is astronomical.

With Wi-Fi, decibels are everything.

I'm thinking of the sort of
stuff that is sold for extending coverage over a smaller area - say
around farm buildings or similar; I can't see why such can't be used for
a longer hop, if you're as isolated as you say, so interference from
other users of the band is unlikely.

Hi J.P. Gilliver,
Did you see the post from Johann who owns a WISP company?
o He thinks that consumer stuff is utter crap.

So do I.

Let me repeat:
o If you know what we know (i.e., what equipment to use)
o Then you can pay about the same as you would for consumer crap
o But end up with HUNDREDS of times the power
o And weatherproofing

If I didn't mention it yet, decibels are everything.

Don't use aerials with more gain than you need, apart from a small
margin: aerial "gain" really means directionality, and I imagine one up
a chimney, or in particular a tree, will be susceptible to wind and
similar - you don't want to be climbing up to realign the aerial every
time it's a bit windy.

Hi J.P. Gillver,
I don't think you read the specs.
o Each antenna has a spec for how it handles in the wind.

These things don't blow about in the wind like you think they do.
o We get 100 mph gusts here on top of the mountain

And I've NEVER had to re-align my antenna.
o Not even once.

And mine is three times the diameter of the one I'm suggesting for pjp.

The point is that there is zero chance that a properly installed antenna
will blow in the wind because these things are DESIGNED for the wind.

You'd be amazed at how well built they are
o My Rocket M5, for example, is almost all stainless steel bolts.

The home repair folks would have orgasm just holding it in their hands.
<https://i.postimg.cc/yNXw0TZS/antenna02.jpg>

(Over a longer period, the growth of the tree
might well affect this too!) And don't assume they _have_ to be a dish:
you can get (certainly for 2.4 GHz, I assume for 5 by now) Yagi beams,
i. e. a long rod with directors, like a TV aerial; these might be less
susceptible to wind than a dish.

Again, do NOT worry about wind.
o Don't you think they THOUGHT about wind when they designed the mounts?

(Last time I looked, the name Swann
seemed to be significant - better known for home video [security cameras
and the like]; I think they're Australian.

We already had people like Johann suggest manufacturers.
o Swann _never_ once came up.

Dunno anything about them ... but if they make CPE, then check them out.
o I wouldn't suggest pjp waste _any_ time on the manufacturer.

It's Ubiquiti that most WISPs around here use ...
o For good reasons.

Price and performance and reliablity and weatherproofing
o Being just some of them.

There may be a company, or
distributor, in your country.)

Hmmm... Do you know what country pjp is in?
o The country might make a differenc if Amazon won't ship to them.

All the stuff I'm advocating is sold left and right.
o I usually buy from Streakwave; but Amazon sells all this stuff.

Why waste time on the manufacturer when pjp's problem isn't that?

If you do need a dish, a perforated one
is better - if the perforations are a small fraction of a wavelength
(which is a few cm for 2.4 GHz), they don't affect performance
significantly, but let wind through a fair bit. I don't know if such are
easily available for 2.4 or 5 GHz, though (I know they are for satellite
TV).

That seems like logical advice, where, you'll note, I have quite a few grid
antennas, but in practice, we use the dishes all the time and they work
fine.

Methinks you have no experience with the wind resistance of these things.
o That's OK as you bring up good points.

However, if wind was a problem then the WISPs would be spending all their
time re-aligning antennas, which, in practice, just doesn't happen.

Good luck, and don't worry about Peruvian mountaintops - fascinating
though that is, I don't think it matters for your 1 km situation!
(Though compared to UK, I envy your having that much land to play with!
Few here other than remoter parts of Scotland have anywhere near that
much!)

Out here, on our Silicon Valley mountaintops, you can't built two houses on
79 acres, becuase we have 40 acre zoning.

So everyone has tons of acres. Tons and tons and tons of acres.

That's why we keep all these radios lying around:
<https://i.postimg.cc/XJChDCPr/spare-access-points.jpg>

--
It's great when people are purposefully helpful to each other on Usenet.

 

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 00:54:35 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

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".

Hi Dan,

I'm suggesting that even the PowerBeams are overkill for what pjp needs.
o They're #200 for the set

Amazon sells them (do they ship to wherever pjp lives?):
<https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-PBE-M5-400-2-pack-PowerBeam-AirMAX/dp/B00UZ03UUW>

These are hundreds of times more powerful than any consumer equipment
you're likelty to find in any local box store, I wager.

These things go for many miles, so 1km is child's play.
o You can always dial down the transmit power as desired

As you've seen in my photos, these radios have a way of multiplying over
time, so you will always appreciate that you can re-purpose them any time
you like (e.g., if pjp sells his RV, he can re-use the radios).

One example of radio re-use is for him to mount the radio on a pole OUTSIDE
his house, where he can feed his own Internet signal BACK into the house,
so that he can paint a far off corner of the house.

Running the cat5 cable outside is usually a lot easier than running it
inside, which is why we do this neat trick all the time where I live.

All this stuff is weather proofed like you can't believe, besides.

--
Bringing useful ideas to Usenet for discussion by intelligent adults.

 

[Arlen _G_ Holder]

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

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message <slrnqqknmb.1ug.dan@djph.net>, Dan Purgert <dan@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.