Bye bye Aircard....

George <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]
september.org:

> Why would that (higher power) be? Typically a good design doesn't spray
> excess RF since as I described it makes no sense to use high power. That
> is just something that persists from the days of one way communication
> with people forgetting that Wi-Fi is two way.
>
>

You sound like a sellphone company trying to justify cutting the power down
for the 12th time to increase calls/sq km and increase company profits.

Stop drinking the Koolaid! The wifi with the biggest dick rules the roost!
It really is that simple.....

---

› See More: Bye bye Aircard....

On 10/11/10 8:21 AM, Fred wrote:
> George<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]
> september.org:
>
>> Why would that (higher power) be? Typically a good design doesn't spray
>> excess RF since as I described it makes no sense to use high power. That
>> is just something that persists from the days of one way communication
>> with people forgetting that Wi-Fi is two way.
>>
>>
>
> You sound like a sellphone company trying to justify cutting the power down
> for the 12th time to increase calls/sq km and increase company profits.

He just doesn't understand how 802.11 works.

On 11/11/2010 9:58 AM, SMS wrote:
> On 10/11/10 8:21 AM, Fred wrote:
>> George<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]
>> september.org:
>>
>>> Why would that (higher power) be? Typically a good design doesn't spray
>>> excess RF since as I described it makes no sense to use high power. That
>>> is just something that persists from the days of one way communication
>>> with people forgetting that Wi-Fi is two way.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You sound like a sellphone company trying to justify cutting the power
>> down
>> for the 12th time to increase calls/sq km and increase company profits.
>
> He just doesn't understand how 802.11 works.

Actually I do understand how radio communication works (interesting that
if someone actually knows how something works they are acting on behalf
of some corporation).

Your "he doesn't understand 802.11" indicates that you really don't
understand fundamental ideas because 802.11 is simply the protocol that
defines how the devices "talk" to use simple terms. Underneath that it
is still basic radio communication.

At any rate I will simplify it for you and Larry. If you have a simple
communications system that is unidirectional such as pagers, radio, TV
etc power (including ERP due to antenna gain) is very meaningful and
boosting it will increase coverage.

Two way systems require both a receiver and transmitter on each "end".
So to have successful communications each receiver has to be able to
hear the other transmitter. If you boost the transmit signal on one end
you now have a mismatched system since the receiver on the other end can
now hear the transmitter from a greater distance but since its transmit
power is still the same the other receiver can't hear it.

Sorry you and Larry don't understand such basic ideas which can be shown
by modeling and also practically with actual equipment.

On 11/11/10 7:56 AM, George wrote:

> Sorry you and Larry don't understand such basic ideas which can be shown
> by modeling and also practically with actual equipment.

What you're confused about is how the bi-directionality functions.
Wireless access points, if installed correctly, can be seen by clients
from a much greater distance than is practical for a low power client to
communicate from. The higher power clients work extremely well at
allowing connections to be established at the highest possible speed.
Part of the reason is the improved antenna on the high power client
side, and part is because of the increased power level.

I've tried several high power clients, including USB, CardBus, and
Ethernet. They all allow connections at a further distance and higher
speed than the built-in wireless.

On 11/11/2010 12:35 PM, SMS wrote:
> On 11/11/10 7:56 AM, George wrote:
>
>> Sorry you and Larry don't understand such basic ideas which can be shown
>> by modeling and also practically with actual equipment.
>
> What you're confused about is how the bi-directionality functions.
> Wireless access points, if installed correctly, can be seen by clients
> from a much greater distance than is practical for a low power client to
> communicate from. The higher power clients work extremely well at
> allowing connections to be established at the highest possible speed.
> Part of the reason is the improved antenna on the high power client
> side, and part is because of the increased power level.
>
> I've tried several high power clients, including USB, CardBus, and
> Ethernet. They all allow connections at a further distance and higher
> speed than the built-in wireless.

Remember the point is high power not changing the equation using a
different antenna system.

You can stick with eternal black cloud ***** all of the time about stuff
he doesn't understand Larrys "The wifi with the biggest dick rules the
roost!". I will go with things I know based on my applied education.

George <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]
september.org:

> You can stick with eternal black cloud ***** all of the time about
stuff
> he doesn't understand Larrys "The wifi with the biggest dick rules the
> roost!". I will go with things I know based on my applied education.
>

I go with 20 years in digital communications, mostly paging. The bigger
the transmitterS, the more of them, all on the same frequency, the better
the coverage......in some really amazing places where it should have
never paged.....in a metal coffee can 25 miles from the last transmitter
is always fun...(c;]

We built pagers from pieces parts in a really nice screen room. The
paging transmitters had so much signal leaking into a commercial screen
room, especially on the upper UHF bands, it was hard to tweak the
receivers before midnight when the damned thing would unkey long
enough....MILES from the screen room and shop....so you could hear the
test signal generator.

RF is RF. The transmitter with the biggest dick STILL rules the chicken
coop.

POWER IS OUR FRIEND.
Your local UHF TV station doesn't run 25MW ERP just to see how many birds
they can kill. Come down from the tower with a sunburn many times...(c;]

Fred <[email protected]> wrote:

>I go with 20 years in digital communications,

I go with 50+ years of radio (RF) communications. Big woop...

>mostly paging.

The problem here is some digital guys apparently don't understand RF.

>The bigger the transmitterS, the more of them, all on the same frequency, the better
>the coverage.....

The transmitter is but *half* the communication. The receiver on
*both* ends must be able to hear the other equally for the best
two-way communication to take place.

>RF is RF. The transmitter with the biggest dick STILL rules the chicken
>coop.

Being a ham radio operator I often work QRP (5 watts or less). I can
often hear other hams using high power (1000 watts or more) but they
can't hear my peanut whistle so no contact.

It's the same with digital, the contact (connection) is controlled by
the *weakest* signal. So even though you may be running high power, if
your receiver has difficulty hearing the other end because it's
running low power then you get either very slow throughput or none at
all.

>POWER IS OUR FRIEND.

You would be better served with a directional antenna which improves
things on both ends.


>Your local UHF TV station doesn't run 25MW ERP just to see how many birds
>they can kill. Come down from the tower with a sunburn many times...(c;]

Bad example. They are using *one-way* communication and trying to
cover as much area as possible. Nobody is trying to communicate back.
Nothing at all to do with the digital *two-way* communication being
discussed here.

AJL <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> You would be better served with a directional antenna which improves
> things on both ends.
>

Not true on shared wifi. That would be true on an unshared channel, but
if only the hotspot can hear you and the other stations sharing the
limited 11 channels of 2450 Mhz wifi, they transmit when you do and the
signals crash. If you can be heard by the radios of the other users,
they hold off transmitting their packets until your POWERFUL transmitter
is off....lots less crashing.

When you hear people reporting poor performance of any wifi, it's almost
always crashing because the transceivers have so little power and,
instead of a real antenna, the users MUST have everything hidden away in
all their glitz...sellphones, laptops, iPad, iPhone, netbooks....The
fashion statement always comes at the expense of system performance. I'd
buy a netbook with a big pullup antenna rated at 12 db gain that was 3'
high if they made it. Screw the fashion statement. I'm wearin'
UnderArmour drawers, that's enough.

Fred <[email protected]> wrote:

>AJL <[email protected]> wrote

>> You would be better served with a directional antenna which improves
>> things on both ends.

>Not true on shared wifi.

True with any kind of RF (digitally encoded or otherwise). It's *pure
physics*. If you add an 18db gain directional antenna to your wifi,
the receiver on the other end can't tell if you added an 18db gain
antenna or increased your power by 18db. Likewise your receiver sees
an 18db stronger signal than if it were hooked to it's original
antenna. Maybe more since embedded antennas often have negative gain.
Another advantage of a directional antenna is that it nulls all the
other wifi signals off the sides and back of the antenna so there is
less interference to deal with. That's why virtually all serious wifi
extenders (such as for RV use) include a directional antenna.

AJL <[email protected]> wrote in
news[email protected]:

> Another advantage of a directional antenna is that it nulls all the
> other wifi signals off the sides and back of the antenna so there is
> less interference to deal with. That's why virtually all serious wifi
> extenders (such as for RV use) include a directional antenna.
>

But, your thinking is wrong on a shared channel, like all wifi
channels.....

POINT TO POINT wifi, like connecting building A to building B with no
other competing users on your own channel...you're right. But, public
wifi isn't like that! There are 11 channels in the USA and, in most
cities, hundreds of users connected to hundreds of wifi hotspots who can
interfere with each other. IF you have a directional antenna where half
the users' receivers cannot hear you, they don't know you're on the air
and transmit on top of you. When the hotspot you are sharing with 30
other people hears two signals at once, because of your very directional
antenna, it cannot make out the data from the competing stations on the
air simultaneously. It's called a "crash" and that packet must be resent
another time, jamming the channel and holding everyone up. When all the
stations can hear all the other stations on Channel 6, there's no
crashing because the transceivers are smart enough to wait until there's
a dead time to occupy the channel. Data flows smoothly at maximum speed
between all the shared users....with little crashing.

Does that make sense to you?

On 11/12/2010 10:35 PM, AJL wrote:
> Fred<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> AJL<[email protected]> wrote
>
>>> You would be better served with a directional antenna which improves
>>> things on both ends.
>
>> Not true on shared wifi.
>
> True with any kind of RF (digitally encoded or otherwise). It's *pure
> physics*. If you add an 18db gain directional antenna to your wifi,
> the receiver on the other end can't tell if you added an 18db gain
> antenna or increased your power by 18db. Likewise your receiver sees
> an 18db stronger signal than if it were hooked to it's original
> antenna. Maybe more since embedded antennas often have negative gain.
> Another advantage of a directional antenna is that it nulls all the
> other wifi signals off the sides and back of the antenna so there is
> less interference to deal with. That's why virtually all serious wifi
> extenders (such as for RV use) include a directional antenna.

He just doesn't get (and never will) why his "mega power" fetish is so
silly. This is just his latest silliness likely to be followed by a few
months of non scientific posts extolling the "advantages" of unilateral
higher power in two way communications.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 08:40:12 -0500, George <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> He just doesn't get (and never will) why his "mega power" fetish is so
> silly. This is just his latest ...

Sorry, George, but you're *both* right. Many's the time I've been within figurative earshot of a wireless access point -- barely -- and have been unable to connect to it -- until I moved my equipment a whole lot closer to it.

Why's that? my "ears" were OK, but my "voice" was too weak for the WAP to hear -- until I got closer.

Had I gotten *louder* instead, I'd have achieved the same effect, n'est-ce pas? That's Fred's point :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

On 2010-11-12, AJL <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred <[email protected]> wrote:
> The problem here is some digital guys apparently don't understand RF.
>
>>The bigger the transmitterS, the more of them, all on the same frequency, the better
>>the coverage.....
>
> The transmitter is but *half* the communication. The receiver on
> *both* ends must be able to hear the other equally for the best
> two-way communication to take place.

That's absolutely true if the bandwidth requirements in each
direction are the same, i.e. both ends are sending CW or NBFM
or digital cell phone voice. Since the information rate each
end needs to send is the same both ends will optimally require
the same amount of power to send it so the other end can hear
it.

The complexity with 802.11 is that there is another dimension: the
bit rate each end sends with is variable, and each end independently
sets its sending bit rate based on observations of how well the
other end is hearing it (google "rate adaptation"). This is why
it is still advantageous for one end to run at higher power
even if the other end doesn't. The higher power at one end
alone won't increase coverage, but it will increase the capacity
of the network since the ability of the higher power end to send
at higher bit rates will allow either or both ends of the connection
to send more stuff. That is, since the channel is time-shared,
the higher bit rate can be used to allow the higher power end
to send more bits in a given time or to send the same bits in less
time, with the latter freeing up time on the channel so the lower
power guys can send more often.

So since higher power at one end can improve things (capacity, if
not coverage) even if the other end doesn't match it, it isn't
uncommon for APs in particular to run at higher power than the
typical laptop client. It is relatively cheap for the AC-powered
AP to do so, and it is hard to know what power output clients
might be using in any case. I think the two APs I have in my
house run at 200 mW output even though my laptop proably runs
at 1/4 or 1/10th that.

Of course if higher power is often used at the AP to increase
capacity that power is also available to use to increase range,
at lower bit rates, if a client produces enough power to match
it. As a practical matter a higher power client adapter will
often get you better range since a lot of APs run at significantly
higher power than their more usual clients.

Dennis Ferguson

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 17:02:55 -0500, in
<[email protected]>, tlvp
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 08:40:12 -0500, George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> He just doesn't get (and never will) why his "mega power" fetish is so
>> silly. This is just his latest ...
>
>Sorry, George, but you're *both* right. Many's the time I've been within figurative earshot of a wireless access point -- barely -- and have been unable to connect to it -- until I moved my equipment a whole lot closer to it.
>
>Why's that? my "ears" were OK, but my "voice" was too weak for the WAP to hear -- until I got closer.
>
>Had I gotten *louder* instead, I'd have achieved the same effect, n'est-ce pas? That's Fred's point :-) .

Better antenna is a better solution.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 04:55:08 +0000, in
<[email protected]>, Fred <[email protected]>
wrote:

>This was brought about by Cricket's new pricing structure for
>"unlimited" broadband. Up til now, they really haven't enforced the GB
>"limit" before dropping your bandwidth to 10%. With money now more of an
>object, selling 3 levels of "limits" before the speed goes to ****, 2.5GB
>for $40, 5GB for $50 and 7.5GB for $60/month, I think it's time to let my
>account lapse next month and toss the Cricket modem into the bin for the
>last time. Cellular just can't help itself selling it by the
>byte....like SMS/MMS.
>http://www.mycricket.com/broadband/plans

T-Mobile offers "unlimited" data for $20 month more than voice alone,
with excellent HSPA speeds, and tethering is standard on my Nexus One,
both cable and wireless hotspot. Highly recommended.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]