reply to discussion
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 174
  1. #61
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    On 11/14/2010 8:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

    > Incidentally, I don't believe your device can output 2 watts if
    > powered by USB. Each USB port can belch 5V at 0.5A maximum. That's
    > 2.5 watts per port.


    Not quite. The USB port on a laptop or desktop can "belch 5V" at 0.5A
    _minimum_ not maximum (and not typical). 500mA is guaranteed, but in
    reality, on most systems, the over-current protection on the USB ports
    does not kick in until a much higher level, it's rare for the
    over-current protector to kick in at less than 750mA, and many ports can
    supply 800 to 1000mA. That's why so many devices that come with a dual
    USB plug for more current will usually work just fine from a single port.

    I.e. as a commonly used over-current protection device's data sheet
    states "The current limit circuit is designed to protect the system
    supply, the MOSFET switches and the load from damage caused by excessive
    currents. The current limit threshold is set internally to allow a
    _minimum_ of 500 mA through the MOSFET but limits the output current to
    approximately 1.0A _typical_."

    If you ever want to test the USB port's limit, hook up a 5 ohm 5 watt
    resistor in series with an 8 ohm 5 watt potentiometer and adjust the pot
    until the over-current triggers, then measure the resistance. It's
    resettable so there's no permanent damage with the over-current kicks in.

    Some smaller devices with host USB ports can't supply even 500mA (i.e.
    some PDAs could set their USB port to host mode) but you won't see a
    laptop or desktop with that limit.



    See More: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino




  2. #62
    Fred
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > What characterizes all of them
    > is that none of the owners have bothered to even try using their
    > system with the transmitters set at lower power. After a suitable
    > demonstration that it works equally well at 100 milliwatts as at 10
    > watts, the amplifier usually disappears.
    >


    Too funny. The transmitter power is set to AUTO, by default. I doubt
    it's running 2 watts 5 feet from my wifi at home.

    Do you go around reporting all the hams in Santa Cruz you don't like?
    I've heard crazy stories out of Californicate about 2 meter repeater wars
    and other nonsense bull**** that are very hard to believe. I bet FCC
    loves you.

    I put your ham call into Google and got 21,000+ hits! Are you the big
    controller type in the local ham club?




  3. #63
    Jeff Liebermann
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 04:58:45 +0000, Fred <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote in
    >news:[email protected]:
    >
    >>>There were 39 hotspots on the list tonight.

    >>
    >> I'm not impressed. I've seen hundreds. All that proves is that you
    >> live in an area that's infested with too many radios. Incidentally,
    >> I've seen access points that have as many at 10 SSID's running. Look
    >> for duplicated MAC addresses.
    >>

    >
    >Without the Alfa and its antenna, I see 8 hotspots and can only marginally
    >connect to 2 of them at Red Roof Inn......That's a real difference.


    Nice job ignoring all the important points and concentrating on the
    trivia.

    Take your unspecified model netbook. Open the door to the wi-fi card
    on the bottom of the netbook. Attach a Hirose U.FL to RP-SMA pigtail
    directly to the Main port of the wireless card. The other end goes to
    your 5.5dBi omni antenna. Now, try sniffing for AP's. Unless your
    unspecified Netbook wi-fi card is comatose, you should see 39 access
    points.

    Well, you'll probably see a few less than 39 because the PROBE REQ
    packets belched by your unspecified active sniffer might not be heard
    by the outlying AP's.

    --
    Jeff Liebermann [email protected]
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558



  4. #64
    Fred
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > Jeff Liebermann


    Enough bull****....plonk. **** off Jeff..



  5. #65
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    On 11/14/2010 9:04 PM, SMS wrote:
    > On 11/14/2010 8:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
    >
    >> Incidentally, I don't believe your device can output 2 watts if
    >> powered by USB. Each USB port can belch 5V at 0.5A maximum. That's
    >> 2.5 watts per port.

    >
    > Not quite. The USB port on a laptop or desktop can "belch 5V" at 0.5A
    > _minimum_ not maximum (and not typical). 500mA is guaranteed, but in
    > reality, on most systems, the over-current protection on the USB ports
    > does not kick in until a much higher level, it's rare for the
    > over-current protector to kick in at less than 750mA, and many ports can
    > supply 800 to 1000mA. That's why so many devices that come with a dual
    > USB plug for more current will usually work just fine from a single port.
    >
    > I.e. as a commonly used over-current protection device's data sheet
    > states "The current limit circuit is designed to protect the system
    > supply, the MOSFET switches and the load from damage caused by excessive
    > currents. The current limit threshold is set internally to allow a
    > _minimum_ of 500 mA through the MOSFET but limits the output current to
    > approximately 1.0A _typical_."
    >
    > If you ever want to test the USB port's limit, hook up a 5 ohm 5 watt
    > resistor in series with an 8 ohm 5 watt potentiometer and adjust the pot
    > until the over-current triggers, then measure the resistance. It's
    > resettable so there's no permanent damage with the over-current kicks in.


    Oh, and this may still not trigger it since you won't be able to go over
    1 amp. Maybe a 2 ohm resistor instead, or a 16 ohm pot by itself.



  6. #66
    jcdill
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    On 14/11/10 9:19 PM, Fred wrote:
    > Jeff Liebermann<[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    >> Jeff Liebermann

    >
    > Enough bull****....plonk. **** off Jeff..


    hahahahahahaha!

    <plonk to Fred>



  7. #67
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    On 11/14/2010 8:58 PM, Fred wrote:
    > Jeff Liebermann<[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    >>> There were 39 hotspots on the list tonight.

    >>
    >> I'm not impressed. I've seen hundreds. All that proves is that you
    >> live in an area that's infested with too many radios. Incidentally,
    >> I've seen access points that have as many at 10 SSID's running. Look
    >> for duplicated MAC addresses.
    >>

    >
    > Without the Alfa and its antenna, I see 8 hotspots and can only marginally
    > connect to 2 of them at Red Roof Inn......That's a real difference.


    With a "regular power" USB adapter and the antenna you would probably do
    about as well. Most of the improvement is because of the better antenna,
    not because of the higher power.

    I've used my Buffalo high power card with and without the external
    antenna. The connectivity does improve with the higher power, but it
    improves even more when you plug in the external directional antenna.



  8. #68
    Roy
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    On 11/14/2010 9:03 PM, Fred wrote:
    > Jeff Liebermann<[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    >> Your 2 watt
    >> transmitter is not legal no matter what antenna is used.
    >>

    >
    > Report them:
    >
    > <http://www.data-alliance.net/-strse-...S036NH-2000mW-
    > 1000mW/Detail.bok>
    >
    > Send their Arizona company webpage to [email protected] as your civic duty.
    >
    > FCC, I'm sure, will put a stop to it, immediately, and send your report
    > to the data-alliance company law firm, as required by law.
    >
    > If you're so concerned it's all illegal for mere mortals to possess and
    > use, it's your DUTY to report them!
    >
    > Let us know how that works out for you. They've been selling these units
    > for some time. They're not new. FCC approved them for use. Don't
    > forget to mention that to FCC in your report.
    >
    > I didn't invent or manufacture the ****ing thing. I simply bought
    > it....It's not my fault.
    >
    > Holy **** you all are a brainwashed bunch!


    I went to the manufacturer web site. As I read it, the unit is 2W ERP
    (33 dbm). Subtract out the 5 DB antenna and you get 28 dbm or around
    650 mw transmit power and thus legal.



  9. #69
    Roy
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    On 11/14/2010 10:51 PM, Roy wrote:
    > ...
    >
    > I went to the manufacturer web site. As I read it, the unit is 2W ERP
    > (33 dbm). Subtract out the 5 DB antenna and you get 28 dbm or around 650
    > mw transmit power and thus legal.


    Further data. The manufacturer reports that it uses the RT3070 chipset.
    From the datasheet

    Transmit Output Power 11b: 17dBm @ 11Mbps
    11g: 13dBm @ 54Mbps

    http://wifimod.tk/wifiblog/?tag=rt3070

    13dbm is 200 mw.



  10. #70
    Jeff Liebermann
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 21:04:39 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >On 11/14/2010 8:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
    >
    >> Incidentally, I don't believe your device can output 2 watts if
    >> powered by USB. Each USB port can belch 5V at 0.5A maximum. That's
    >> 2.5 watts per port.

    >
    >Not quite. The USB port on a laptop or desktop can "belch 5V" at 0.5A
    >_minimum_ not maximum (and not typical). 500mA is guaranteed, but in
    >reality, on most systems, the over-current protection on the USB ports
    >does not kick in until a much higher level, it's rare for the
    >over-current protector to kick in at less than 750mA, and many ports can
    >supply 800 to 1000mA. That's why so many devices that come with a dual
    >USB plug for more current will usually work just fine from a single port.


    What little tinkering I've done on this found that the controller chip
    will declare an overload at about 1000ma, and shut off. You can get
    away with sourcing more than 500ma, but if you go over, such as
    charging an electrolytic filter cap, it will turn off the port.

    >I.e. as a commonly used over-current protection device's data sheet
    >states "The current limit circuit is designed to protect the system
    >supply, the MOSFET switches and the load from damage caused by excessive
    >currents. The current limit threshold is set internally to allow a
    >_minimum_ of 500 mA through the MOSFET but limits the output current to
    >approximately 1.0A _typical_."


    That's not what I found, but it's easy enough to retest. I have a USB
    test cable butchered to insert an ammeter to measure current. As I
    recall, there's also a limit per chip for multiport devices.

    Digging through the USB 2.0 spec from:
    <http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/usb_20_081810.zip>
    7.2.1.2.1 Over-current Protection
    The preset value cannot exceed 5.0 A and must be
    sufficiently above the maximum allowable port current
    such that transient currents (e.g., during power up or
    dynamic attach or reconfiguration) do not trip the
    over-current protector.

    7.3.2 Bus Timing/Electrical Characteristics
    Table 7-7
    High-power Hub Port (out) 500 ma minimum.

    Y'er right. 500 ma is the minimum, with the only maximum specified is
    the 5A protection, leaving the overload point totally to the chip
    manufacturer. That leaves room for quite a bit of variation and
    creativity by the chip designers.

    However, it doesn't matter. I'm fairly sure about the 10% efficiency
    of the 2.4GHz power amplifier. At 2 watts output, that would require
    that the USB ports source 20 watts of DC power, which isn't going to
    happen.

    >If you ever want to test the USB port's limit, hook up a 5 ohm 5 watt
    >resistor in series with an 8 ohm 5 watt potentiometer and adjust the pot
    >until the over-current triggers, then measure the resistance. It's
    >resettable so there's no permanent damage with the over-current kicks in.


    Crude. I have an active load I once built for testing power supplies.
    Basically just a voltage regulator setup as a constant current source
    and heat sink. The problem is finding it. 5 unit loads (500ma) is a
    10 ohm resistor, so that's probably easier.

    >Some smaller devices with host USB ports can't supply even 500mA (i.e.
    >some PDAs could set their USB port to host mode) but you won't see a
    >laptop or desktop with that limit.


    Ummm... the USB port on a PDA or cell phone is meant to charge its
    internal battery, so methinks there should not be a 5V source in the
    PDA USB port.



    --
    Jeff Liebermann [email protected]
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558



  11. #71
    Jeff Liebermann
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 05:03:28 +0000, Fred <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote in
    >news:[email protected]:
    >
    >> Your 2 watt
    >> transmitter is not legal no matter what antenna is used.


    >Report them:
    ><http://www.data-alliance.net/-strse-158/Alfa-AWUS036NH-2000mW-1000mW/Detail.bok>


    Thanks for not bothering to supply the FCC ID. Digging through the
    Grantee search page, the prefix for Alfa is UQ2. They show 17 devices
    with FCC type certification, none of which are the AWUS036NH. However,
    they do list the AWUS036H, which seems to be an identical package, but
    with a +20dBm (100 mw) 802.11g power output and +24dBm (>200mw)
    802.11b output. Perhaps someone added an extra zero, where 200mw
    magically became 2000mw?

    I think if you open up your device, and compare it with the FCC
    photos, you'll find they're identical.
    <https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=735762&fcc_id=%27UQ2AWUS036H%27>
    If the above government abomination doesn't work (because it needs to
    drop cookies from a previous page), then go unto:
    <http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/>
    and inscribe UQ2 in the Grantee Code box. The look for AWUS036H in
    the list.

    Nothing to report. If that's what you own, it's legal.


    --
    Jeff Liebermann [email protected]
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558



  12. #72
    Jeff Liebermann
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 23:04:33 -0800, Roy <[email protected]> wrote:

    >13dbm is 200 mw.


    Nope. 13dBm is 20 mw. 200 mw is 23dBm.
    <http://www.aubraux.com/design/dbm-to-milli-watts-table.php>
    <http://www.aubraux.com/design/milli-watts-to-dbm-table.php>

    I have this scribbled on the shelf above my desk:
    1 mw = 0 dBm
    10 mw = 10 dBm
    100 mw = 20 dBm
    1 watt = 30 dBm
    10 watts = 40 dBm
    100 watts = 50 dBm
    1 kw = 60 dBm
    I interpolate the values in between using 3dB = twice the power. If
    desperate, I'll use a calculator or web site.

    --
    Jeff Liebermann [email protected]
    150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558



  13. #73
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    On 11/14/2010 11:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

    > Ummm... the USB port on a PDA or cell phone is meant to charge its
    > internal battery, so methinks there should not be a 5V source in the
    > PDA USB port.


    My old Toshiba E750 had a separate power connector and USB port (the USB
    port was via the adapter that also had a VGA port). The USB port could
    be set to host mode, one of the few PDAs with that ability. I think it
    also charged via USB though, and you could buy an adapter cable that let
    you charge via USB and operate in host mode at the same time. I'm
    certain that it did not provide 500mA, and there is a provision in the
    USB spec that allows lower current.



  14. #74
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 03:41:12 +0000, in
    <[email protected]>, Fred <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >alt.binaries.movies.divx
    >
    >alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.(your fav genre)
    >
    >It never ceases to amaze me how many posters to these sellphone/Apple
    >groups have no idea how to use binaries off newsgroups for unlimited
    >entertainment at no cost....


    Many of us don't stoop to thievery. Do you shoplift too, or only steal
    media on the Internet because you don't think you'll get caught?

    --
    John

    "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
    difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
    boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford



  15. #75
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino

    On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 20:19:52 -0800, in
    <[email protected]>, SMS
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 11/14/2010 7:38 PM, Fred wrote:
    >> nospam<[email protected]> wrote in news:141120101636047820%
    >> [email protected]d:
    >>
    >>> In article<[email protected]>, John Navas
    >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Nonsense. While driving my phone is playing Pandora, Internet radio, or
    >>>> podcasts, and giving me voice turn-by-turn directions at the same time.
    >>>> I also use data while hiking and sailing. Wi-Fi can only compete when
    >>>> I'm getting coffee at Starbucks.
    >>>
    >>> and you don't come anywhere close to 5 gig doing that daily?

    >>
    >> John is always full of miracles.....(c;]

    >
    >He should work for T-Mobile and/or AT&T since he has good coverage where
    >the carriers themselves insist there is poor or non-existent coverage.
    >It's a miracle!
    >[SNIP]


    It's actually fact.
    I post hard performance data, including GPS coordinates.
    You just make things up.

    --
    John

    "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
    than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
    "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
    "Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
    as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin



  • Similar Threads







  • Quick Reply Quick Reply

    If you are already a member, please login above.