| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
Rod Speed wrote:
John - KD5YI wrote: Rod Speed wrote: Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote Rod Speed wrote Is one transmit and the other receive? Or are they both transmit and receive? They're normally both transmit and receive. That's a shame. Here in Israel we are limited to 100mw EIRP, which severly limits the transmit antenna. There is NO limitation on the receive antenna. A receive antenna has no EIRP, it doesnt radiate any real power. Actually, when properly matched, it radiates half the received power. Wrong. Wrong. |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 09:30:46 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote, in part: What you may or may not be inclined to believe in spades. That assemblage does not appear to be a sentence. Anyone with a clue considers the facts, not the style stuff, ****wit. But it is distracting when you choose to code your message content in the style of an illiterate A-hole. I also think you should have said "content" rather than "facts." Most of what you have been posting here recently seems to be opinion rather than fact. |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 09:30:46 +1000, in alt.internet.wireless , "Rod
Speed" wrote: You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. Oh, I've just recognised your name. Conversation over, I don't waste my time talking to the sort of fool who thinks that because they're hiding on usenet they can emit language which would get them a severe slapping in real life. Nobody cares what you think. Not even you. *plonk* -- Mark McIntyre |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
xray wrote:
Rod Speed wrote reams of your puerile **** flushed where it belongs Most of what you have been posting here recently seems to be opinion rather than fact. Best get your seems machinery seen to then. Its a fact that even when a receiving antenna does radiate back half of what it recieves, THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED, THE LEGISLATED EIRP LEVEL ALLOWED. Not a shred of opinion involved what so ever. |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
Some terminal ****wit claiming to be
Mark McIntyre wrote just the puerile **** thats all it can ever manage. |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:10:46 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote: xray wrote: Rod Speed wrote reams of your puerile **** flushed where it belongs Most of what you have been posting here recently seems to be opinion rather than fact. Best get your seems machinery seen to then. Its a fact that even when a receiving antenna does radiate back half of what it recieves, THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED, THE LEGISLATED EIRP LEVEL ALLOWED. Not a shred of opinion involved what so ever. Look at this part of the thread... [John said:] If the receiver matching is for optimal noise figure, there may be some reflection and reradiation, but there's nothing pinning it to be half the received power. [Roy said:] John is correct. [Rod said:] Nope. [Roy said:] A receiving antenna, when matched, reradiates half the power it receives. [Rod said:] Yes but that ISNT ANY REAL POWER in the EIRP restriction sense. --- So John made a factual statment. Roy agreed. Your opinion was to disagree with the simple factual statment. Roy added a clarifying statment. You started to go off the hook and SHOUT because you were fixated on EIRP. When I read it I never saw any direct implication about EIRP or legalities in the explanation; it was a simple explanation about antennas. Your *opinion* was involved in deciding you knew the exact intent of the posting and that it had implications in the EIRP thing, just because that is the interpretation that passed through your mind. Ok, I'm done here. Not sure why I took the time for this one last post. |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
Rex wrote
Rod Speed wrote xray wrote Rod Speed wrote Most of what you have been posting here recently seems to be opinion rather than fact. Best get your seems machinery seen to then. Its a fact that even when a receiving antenna does radiate back half of what it recieves, THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED, THE LEGISLATED EIRP LEVEL ALLOWED. Not a shred of opinion involved what so ever. Look at this part of the thread... [John said:] If the receiver matching is for optimal noise figure, there may be some reflection and reradiation, but there's nothing pinning it to be half the received power. [Roy said:] John is correct. [Rod said:] Nope. Not about that particular para of John's. I was saying that John was not correct on the original point about whatever the receiving anntenna radiates BEING RELEVANT TO THE LEGISLATED EIRP LEVEL. No opinion there, just fact. [Roy said:] A receiving antenna, when matched, reradiates half the power it receives. [Rod said:] Yes but that ISNT ANY REAL POWER in the EIRP restriction sense. --- So John made a factual statment. Roy agreed. It wasnt relevant to what was actually being discussed, WHETHER WHATEVER THE RECEIVING ANTENNA RADIATES HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE LEGISLATED EIRP WAS ACTUALLY BEING DISCUSSED. Your opinion was to disagree with the simple factual statment. It wasnt an opinion, it was a statement of fact that that comment John made WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE LEGISLATED EIRP LEVEL THAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED. Roy added a clarifying statment. You started to go off the hook and SHOUT because you were fixated on EIRP. The legislated EIRP level WAS WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED WHEN JOHN MADE SUCH A SPECTACULAR FOOL OF HIMSELF RABBITING ON ABOUT WHAT THE RECIEVING ANTENNA RADIATES. When I read it I never saw any direct implication about EIRP or legalities in the explanation; it was a simple explanation about antennas. Pity it was a comment made WHEN THE LEGISLATED EIRP LEVEL WAS BEING DISCUSSED WITH REFERENCE TO THE RECEIVING ANTENNA. Your *opinion* was involved in deciding you knew the exact intent of the posting Wrong again. It is a FACT that John's comment had no relevance what so ever to what was being discussed, whether the receiving antenna has any relevance what so ever to the legislated EIRP level. It doesnt. and that it had implications in the EIRP thing, just because that is the interpretation that passed through your mind. Nothing to do with my mind, it was what was being discussed. Ok, I'm done here. Not sure why I took the time for this one last post. Yeah, you just made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself, yet again. |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
[misc.consumers.frugal-living dropped from distribution list.]
Roy Lewallen hath wroth: Don K wrote: "John - KD5YI" wrote in message news:XLQrg.2896$bd4.372@trnddc01... Rod Speed wrote: A receive antenna has no EIRP, it doesnt radiate any real power. Actually, when properly matched, it radiates half the received power. How do you get that? If the receiver input impedance is matched to the antenna, all the received power is absorbed. There is no reflection. There is no radiation. If the receiver matching is for optimal noise figure, there may be some reflection and reradiation, but there's nothing pinning it to be half the received power. John is correct. A receiving antenna, when matched, reradiates half the power it receives. An impinging field induces current in the antenna. This causes radiation, just like the current in a transmitting antenna. As it turns out, when the antenna is matched, the amount of power radiated equals the amount of power delivered to the load, and that's the best you can do. If you'd like a more in-depth and mathematical explanation, you can find it in any antenna text, often discussed as "scattering". If a receiving antenna did absorb all the impinging power, it would be a lot easier to make a shield or a stealth aircraft. Roy Lewallen, W7EL I'm not so sure. I couldn't find any specific references to this effect in several books I skimmed. Same with internet searches. If true, then the concept of converting solar power in an orbital satellite, converting it to microwaves, beaming it down to an antenna array in the middle of the desert, and converting it back to electricity, isn't going to work if the array re-radiates half the power. That's going to ruin quite a few nifty science fiction stories and innovative business plans. I also note that the common microwave path analysis calculations don't take re-radiation into account. For example, if I start with an EIRP of perhaps XX dBm from a transmit antenna, -YY dB of path loss, and ZZ dB receive antenna gain, the power delivered to the receiver (ignoring coax losses) is calculated at (XX - YY + ZZ) dBm without any mention of the -3dB that would need to be subtracted if half the receive power is re-radiated from the rx antenna. It would seem that the common formula and web forms for link calculations are -3dB off. I trust your judgement in such matters and you have far more expience than me, but something seems wrong or I'm missing something. Can you point me to any books or refernences? I just skimmed Chapter 2 (Fundamentals of Antennas) in "Antenna Engineering Handbook" by Jasik (1961) and found no obvious mention of this effect. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
[misc.consumers.frugal-living dropped from distribution list.] Roy Lewallen hath wroth: Don K wrote: "John - KD5YI" wrote in message news:XLQrg.2896$bd4.372@trnddc01... Rod Speed wrote: A receive antenna has no EIRP, it doesnt radiate any real power. Actually, when properly matched, it radiates half the received power. How do you get that? If the receiver input impedance is matched to the antenna, all the received power is absorbed. There is no reflection. There is no radiation. If the receiver matching is for optimal noise figure, there may be some reflection and reradiation, but there's nothing pinning it to be half the received power. John is correct. A receiving antenna, when matched, reradiates half the power it receives. An impinging field induces current in the antenna. This causes radiation, just like the current in a transmitting antenna. As it turns out, when the antenna is matched, the amount of power radiated equals the amount of power delivered to the load, and that's the best you can do. If you'd like a more in-depth and mathematical explanation, you can find it in any antenna text, often discussed as "scattering". If a receiving antenna did absorb all the impinging power, it would be a lot easier to make a shield or a stealth aircraft. Roy Lewallen, W7EL I'm not so sure. I couldn't find any specific references to this effect in several books I skimmed. Same with internet searches. If true, then the concept of converting solar power in an orbital satellite, converting it to microwaves, beaming it down to an antenna array in the middle of the desert, and converting it back to electricity, isn't going to work if the array re-radiates half the power. That's going to ruin quite a few nifty science fiction stories and innovative business plans. I also note that the common microwave path analysis calculations don't take re-radiation into account. For example, if I start with an EIRP of perhaps XX dBm from a transmit antenna, -YY dB of path loss, and ZZ dB receive antenna gain, the power delivered to the receiver (ignoring coax losses) is calculated at (XX - YY + ZZ) dBm without any mention of the -3dB that would need to be subtracted if half the receive power is re-radiated from the rx antenna. It would seem that the common formula and web forms for link calculations are -3dB off. I trust your judgement in such matters and you have far more expience than me, but something seems wrong or I'm missing something. Can you point me to any books or refernences? I just skimmed Chapter 2 (Fundamentals of Antennas) in "Antenna Engineering Handbook" by Jasik (1961) and found no obvious mention of this effect. Antennas For All Applications by John D. Kraus and Ronald J. Marhefka Third Edition Page 746, Paragraph 21-15 "Prec=(Rr/(Ra+Rr))Pa where Rr=receiver impedance, ohms Ra=antenna radiation resistance, ohms For a perfect match, Rr=Ra, so that Prec=(Rr/(Rr+Rr))Pa=0.5Pa (W) and the receiver gets 1/2 the power collected by the antenna. The other half is reradiated." Also see "TV and Other Receiving Antennas" by Arnold B. Bailey published in 1950 by Rider Publishing. Beginning on page 235 near the bottom: "In radio receiving antennas the predominant resistance is, strangely enough, largely due to the fact that no electrons can move on the antenna surface *without also sending radio energy back out into space*. So here we have the paradox of a receiving antenna, having the prime function of collecting or extracting energy from space, but unable to do so *without itself returning radio energy of like kind* into space. The amount which it returns is one-half of the total that it extracts under properly matched conditions. In a good installation, with the antenna properly connected to its receiver load, the receiving antenna will be able to *deliver to its load one-half of the energy* it extracts from the oncoming radio wave but, by necessity, *must return the other half to free space*. A receiving antenna, then, is itself a *new source* of radiation. This is not so surprising, since *any* reflecting surface, as we have seen, establishes a new source of radiation" (Note: The emphasis in the book was italics) Cheers, John |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
[misc.consumers.frugal-living dropped from distribution list.] Roy Lewallen hath wroth: Don K wrote: "John - KD5YI" wrote in message news:XLQrg.2896$bd4.372@trnddc01... Rod Speed wrote: A receive antenna has no EIRP, it doesnt radiate any real power. Actually, when properly matched, it radiates half the received power. How do you get that? If the receiver input impedance is matched to the antenna, all the received power is absorbed. There is no reflection. There is no radiation. If the receiver matching is for optimal noise figure, there may be some reflection and reradiation, but there's nothing pinning it to be half the received power. John is correct. A receiving antenna, when matched, reradiates half the power it receives. An impinging field induces current in the antenna. This causes radiation, just like the current in a transmitting antenna. As it turns out, when the antenna is matched, the amount of power radiated equals the amount of power delivered to the load, and that's the best you can do. If you'd like a more in-depth and mathematical explanation, you can find it in any antenna text, often discussed as "scattering". If a receiving antenna did absorb all the impinging power, it would be a lot easier to make a shield or a stealth aircraft. Roy Lewallen, W7EL I'm not so sure. I couldn't find any specific references to this effect in several books I skimmed. Same with internet searches. If true, then the concept of converting solar power in an orbital satellite, converting it to microwaves, beaming it down to an antenna array in the middle of the desert, and converting it back to electricity, isn't going to work if the array re-radiates half the power. That's going to ruin quite a few nifty science fiction stories and innovative business plans. I also note that the common microwave path analysis calculations don't take re-radiation into account. For example, if I start with an EIRP of perhaps XX dBm from a transmit antenna, -YY dB of path loss, and ZZ dB receive antenna gain, the power delivered to the receiver (ignoring coax losses) is calculated at (XX - YY + ZZ) dBm without any mention of the -3dB that would need to be subtracted if half the receive power is re-radiated from the rx antenna. It would seem that the common formula and web forms for link calculations are -3dB off. I trust your judgement in such matters and you have far more expience than me, but something seems wrong or I'm missing something. Can you point me to any books or refernences? I just skimmed Chapter 2 (Fundamentals of Antennas) in "Antenna Engineering Handbook" by Jasik (1961) and found no obvious mention of this effect. Antennas For All Applications by John D. Kraus and Ronald J. Marhefka Third Edition Page 746, Paragraph 21-15 "Prec=(Rr/(Ra+Rr))Pa where Rr=receiver impedance, ohms Ra=antenna radiation resistance, ohms For a perfect match, Rr=Ra, so that Prec=(Rr/(Rr+Rr))Pa=0.5Pa (W) and the receiver gets 1/2 the power collected by the antenna. The other half is reradiated." Also see "TV and Other Receiving Antennas" by Arnold B. Bailey published in 1950 by Rider Publishing. Beginning on page 235 near the bottom: "In radio receiving antennas the predominant resistance is, strangely enough, largely due to the fact that no electrons can move on the antenna surface *without also sending radio energy back out into space*. So here we have the paradox of a receiving antenna, having the prime function of collecting or extracting energy from space, but unable to do so *without itself returning radio energy of like kind* into space. The amount which it returns is one-half of the total that it extracts under properly matched conditions. In a good installation, with the antenna properly connected to its receiver load, the receiving antenna will be able to *deliver to its load one-half of the energy* it extracts from the oncoming radio wave but, by necessity, *must return the other half to free space*. A receiving antenna, then, is itself a *new source* of radiation. This is not so surprising, since *any* reflecting surface, as we have seen, establishes a new source of radiation" (Note: The emphasis in the book was italics) Cheers, John |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:33:43 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , Jeff
Liebermann wrote: [misc.consumers.frugal-living dropped from distribution list.] Roy Lewallen hath wroth: John is correct. A receiving antenna, when matched, reradiates half the power it receives. If a receiving antenna did absorb all the impinging power, it would be a lot easier to make a shield or a stealth aircraft. I'm not so sure. I couldn't find any specific references to this effect in several books I skimmed. I trust your judgement in such matters and you have far more expience than me, but something seems wrong or I'm missing something. Can you point me to any books or refernences? I just skimmed Chapter 2 (Fundamentals of Antennas) in "Antenna Engineering Handbook" by Jasik (1961) and found no obvious mention of this effect. Scroggie's "Foundations of Wireless", the book I cut my teeth on (and my father before me...) mentions this in the chapter on Radiation and Aerials where he describes the reratiation as a fact of great importance in recieving aerial design. I think however Rod's final remark is perhaps the most telling - if an antenna really did absorb all the energy landing on it, there would be highly curious side effects. -- Mark McIntyre |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I'm not so sure. I couldn't find any specific references to this effect in several books I skimmed. Same with internet searches. If true, then the concept of converting solar power in an orbital satellite, converting it to microwaves, beaming it down to an antenna array in the middle of the desert, and converting it back to electricity, isn't going to work if the array re-radiates half the power. That's going to ruin quite a few nifty science fiction stories and innovative business plans. I also note that the common microwave path analysis calculations don't take re-radiation into account. For example, if I start with an EIRP of perhaps XX dBm from a transmit antenna, -YY dB of path loss, and ZZ dB receive antenna gain, the power delivered to the receiver (ignoring coax losses) is calculated at (XX - YY + ZZ) dBm without any mention of the -3dB that would need to be subtracted if half the receive power is re-radiated from the rx antenna. It would seem that the common formula and web forms for link calculations are -3dB off. I trust your judgement in such matters and you have far more expience than me, but something seems wrong or I'm missing something. Can you point me to any books or refernences? I just skimmed Chapter 2 (Fundamentals of Antennas) in "Antenna Engineering Handbook" by Jasik (1961) and found no obvious mention of this effect. I could add more references to the ones already mentioned, but you should be able to find it in most antenna texts. Look in the index under aperture and scattering cross section. When dealing with path loss calculations, the effective aperture is used, and this has the reradiation already accounted for. In fact, the reradiated power has its own descriptive unit, the scattering aperture. A good and brief description of these can be found in Kraus' _Antennas_, p. 29ff, and many other texts. You're right that the antennas used to receive beamed power will catch only half of it at best. But many, many business plans have been developed and billions in stock sold for schemes which are much less plausible. For starters, how about the current idea of hydrogen "fuel", "made from water"? (For those not acquainted with the harsh reality of thermodynamics, it takes more energy to extract hydrogen from water than you'll get back when you burn it. Charlatans notwithstanding, there's just flat no way around this little fact.) Then there's SDI. . . Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:15:00 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote
in : You're right that the antennas used to receive beamed power will catch only half of it at best. But many, many business plans have been developed and billions in stock sold for schemes which are much less plausible. For starters, how about the current idea of hydrogen "fuel", "made from water"? (For those not acquainted with the harsh reality of thermodynamics, it takes more energy to extract hydrogen from water than you'll get back when you burn it. Charlatans notwithstanding, there's just flat no way around this little fact.) Then there's SDI. . . The point of hydrogen is a means of energy storage and transmission, not power generation. Typically the hydrogen will be released from water by solar or nuclear power. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hydrogen-economy.htm http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-12/p39.html -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: http://Wireless.wikia.com John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi Wi-Fi How To: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:08:23 GMT, John - KD5YI
wrote: Rod Speed wrote: Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote Rod Speed wrote Is one transmit and the other receive? Or are they both transmit and receive? They're normally both transmit and receive. That's a shame. Here in Israel we are limited to 100mw EIRP, which severly limits the transmit antenna. There is NO limitation on the receive antenna. A receive antenna has no EIRP, it doesnt radiate any real power. Actually, when properly matched, it radiates half the received power. True, but it's such a low level as to normally be considered insignificant. Unfortunately some take that to mean there is none. If there were none, a Yagi antenna which used all passive elements save for the driven element would not work. On receive that driven element plays an active (pardon the pun) roll. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Roger |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
|
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:34:24 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote in : wrote John - KD5YI wrote Rod Speed wrote Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote Rod Speed wrote Is one transmit and the other receive? Or are they both transmit and receive? They're normally both transmit and receive. That's a shame. Here in Israel we are limited to 100mw EIRP, which severly limits the transmit antenna. There is NO limitation on the receive antenna. A receive antenna has no EIRP, it doesnt radiate any real power. Actually, when properly matched, it radiates half the received power. True, but it's such a low level as to normally be considered insignificant. Which is what I said in different words. Unfortunately some take that to mean there is none. The word REAL was used for a reason. If there were none, a Yagi antenna which used all passive elements save for the driven element would not work. On receive that driven element plays an active (pardon the pun) roll. Having fun thrashing that straw man are you ? Take a deep breath. He was more or less on your side. Not nice to lash out at him too (or anyone for that matter). -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: http://Wireless.wikia.com John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi Wi-Fi How To: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
wrote in message ...
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:08:23 GMT, John - KD5YI wrote: Actually, when properly matched, it radiates half the received power. True, but it's such a low level as to normally be considered insignificant. Unfortunately some take that to mean there is none. If there were none, a Yagi antenna which used all passive elements save for the driven element would not work. On receive that driven element plays an active (pardon the pun) roll. Still, that's a special case. I can choose a different special case with a different result. For a large, high-gain aperture-type antenna such as a big horn or dish, virtually the received energy orthogonally incident on its cross-section will be sucked up and absorbed. Therefore you can't really say that an antenna always radiates at least half the received power. Don |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:24:27 -0400, wrote in
: On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:31:06 +0000 (UTC), (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote: Make sure to use encryption. Encryption is NOT to keep your data safe, nothing can do that. If someone is intent on accessing your network, WEP encryption will not keep them out. True, but the ones that use the dynamic encryption can do a reasonably good job along with a firewall and router. The golden rule is "Nothing is bullet proof" Not even in the same universe -- WEP is easily cracked in minutes, little more than the Emperor's new clothes. Use WPA with a strong passphrase for any real security. One of the locals mentioned doing a bit of "war driving" around town just for curiosity. About 80 to 90% of the networks heard were unencrypted AND over half of those _still_used_ the_default_name_and_PW. Yep ... really bad ... shame on the wireless hardware companies! I use hard wired Cat5e in a gigabit network as with the amount of traffic wireless is just too slow even if it is full duplex. Wi-Fi is half duplex. -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: http://Wireless.wikia.com John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi Wi-Fi How To: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
John Navas wrote
Rod Speed wrote wrote John - KD5YI wrote Rod Speed wrote Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote Rod Speed wrote Is one transmit and the other receive? Or are they both transmit and receive? They're normally both transmit and receive. That's a shame. Here in Israel we are limited to 100mw EIRP, which severly limits the transmit antenna. There is NO limitation on the receive antenna. A receive antenna has no EIRP, it doesnt radiate any real power. Actually, when properly matched, it radiates half the received power. True, but it's such a low level as to normally be considered insignificant. Which is what I said in different words. Unfortunately some take that to mean there is none. The word REAL was used for a reason. If there were none, a Yagi antenna which used all passive elements save for the driven element would not work. On receive that driven element plays an active (pardon the pun) roll. Having fun thrashing that straw man are you ? Take a deep breath. Get stuffed. He was more or less on your side. Duh. Not nice to lash out at him too You wouldnt know what a lash was if it was applied to your lard arse. (or anyone for that matter). You get no say what so ever on whose arse gets lashed either. |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:35:37 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote in : [SNIP] *plonk* -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: http://Wireless.wikia.com John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi Wi-Fi How To: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
John Navas wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:35:37 +1000, "Rod Speed" wrote in : [SNIP] *plonk* Fat lot of good that will do you, you stupid plonker. |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
One of the locals mentioned doing a bit of "war driving" around town
just for curiosity. About 80 to 90% of the networks heard were unencrypted AND over half of those _still_used_ the_default_name_and_PW. Yep ... really bad ... shame on the wireless hardware companies! ======================== You probably mean 'shame on the users' who haven't got a clue. By the way it is the same situation here in the north of Scotland . Driving in Inverness you can freely access WiFi points allover town ,from commercial companies to hotels..........but not at locations where you would expect it ....like 'Starbuck' and bookshops like 'Borders' Also in California you have to pay for WiFi access at Starbuck.........must constitute a increasing part of their income,considering the number of people with laptops.....usually without a coffee.. I know ,I know ...life isn't a freebee Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
Highland Ham wrote:
By the way it is the same situation here in the north of Scotland . Driving in Inverness you can freely access WiFi points allover town ,from commercial companies to hotels..........but not at locations where you would expect it ....like 'Starbuck' and bookshops like 'Borders' This will go on until the Scotish police start doing what the English do. They track traffic at the ISP level looking for "kidde porn". Once they find it, they locate the person sending or receiving the files. They have no trouble getting a warrant and come in and arrest the owner of the account and confiscate their equipment. As soon as they do this, "users" will go looking for unencrypted networks and use them, if they don't know I don't know Scotish law, but in most places the owner of the network is responsible for what is done with it. There was a case in Canada of a man found driving five miles per hour in a residential neighborhood. When the police stopped him, his pants were around his ankles and there was a laptop on his lap. Canada unlike most places has a law prohibiting using other people's internet connections without permission. Most places don't. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ |
How to calculate increase of home wireless router range?
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:53:18 +0100, Highland Ham
wrote in : One of the locals mentioned doing a bit of "war driving" around town just for curiosity. About 80 to 90% of the networks heard were unencrypted AND over half of those _still_used_ the_default_name_and_PW. Yep ... really bad ... shame on the wireless hardware companies! ======================== You probably mean 'shame on the users' who haven't got a clue. No, I mean shame on the wireless hardware companies, as I wrote, for such a gross disservice to their customers -- it shouldn't be necessary to be an IT expert to use Wi-Fi safely. It should just work properly. Otherwise it's not ready for the market. -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: http://Wireless.wikia.com John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi Wi-Fi How To: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_How_To Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:46 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com