Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #87088 > unrolled thread

Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-25 01:46 -0400
    Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-25 17:56 +0000
      Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 01:27 -0400
        Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-26 22:11 +0000
          Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 23:04 -0400
            Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-27 03:21 +0000
              Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-27 00:18 -0400
                Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-27 07:09 +0000
                  Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-04 17:40 +0100
                    Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-04 14:43 -0400
                      Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-04 23:09 +0000
                        Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-04 23:14 -0400
                          Need for new personal ID numbers Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-06-04 20:46 -0700
                            Re: Need for new personal ID numbers c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-05 01:29 -0400
                          Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-05 04:53 +0000
                            Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-05 02:13 -0400
                          Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-05 09:26 +0100
                            Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-05 05:24 -0400
                            Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-05 17:36 +0000
                              Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-06 00:16 -0400
                                Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-06 06:08 +0000
                                  Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-06 02:43 -0400
                                    Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-06 20:19 +0000
                                      Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-07 05:54 -0400
                                        Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-07 19:43 +0000
              Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 14:14 +0100
        WiFi range ... Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-05-31 21:19 -0700
          Re: WiFi range ... TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-01 04:26 +0000
            Re: WiFi range ... Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-06-01 22:44 -0700
        Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-01 08:10 +0100
          Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-01 07:33 +0000
            Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 01:35 -0400
          Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 01:15 -0400
            Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-06-01 22:50 -0700
              Re: Recent Experience With RF "Modem-ish" Data Links ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 03:04 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#87579

On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 00:16:45 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Why order a $90 display for like an Ard Uno or equiv ?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GBVWBWCR/

I splurged and went for the $7 version rather than the 4 for $10. That was 
a couple of years ago so maybe the Chinese weren't fully cranked up.

https://toptechboy.com/using-the-ssd1306-oled-with-an-arduino/

You can do Lissajous curves easily. Try that with your 2 line LCD.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87584

On 6/6/26 02:08, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 00:16:45 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     Why order a $90 display for like an Ard Uno or equiv ?
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GBVWBWCR/
> 
> I splurged and went for the $7 version rather than the 4 for $10. That was
> a couple of years ago so maybe the Chinese weren't fully cranked up.
> 
> https://toptechboy.com/using-the-ssd1306-oled-with-an-arduino/
> 
> You can do Lissajous curves easily. Try that with your 2 line LCD.

   Well, for my particular need right now, ONLY need
   a slow stats scroll. Better the 3-for-$9.95 displays.

   Job, needs, Why Spend More ?

   Did you ever use SeeTron or equiv "serial"
   displays ? If it could do RS-232, even by
   crude bit-banging, it would work. LCD was
   kinda new back then - most were VFD. Got
   one to work with a PIC-12xxx chip once.

   Tried to look up SeeTron lately ... does not
   seem to have a real page any more alas. It's
   mentioned, but not REALLY there.

   DO like VFDs ... they still make 'em - crude
   or even bit-addressable.

   Got in the equip to make a bigger square hole
   in that fancy aluminum ZERO case previously
   mentioned. The big hole added 10% to the wifi
   signal, this should add another 10%. Have some
   fiberglass tape to cover the hole. Case top will
   still be maybe 60% there to dissipate heat and
   provide mechanical protection.

   One step at a time.

   Now gotta remember how to wire 'parasite mode'
   on a DS temperature unit ......

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87619

On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 02:43:15 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Did you ever use SeeTron or equiv "serial"
>    displays ? If it could do RS-232, even by crude bit-banging, it would
>    work. LCD was kinda new back then - most were VFD. Got one to work
>    with a PIC-12xxx chip once.

I don't think so. The handheld pH meters had a custom LCD, but I can't 
remember the interface. If I did it with an 8049 it wasn't very complex. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87643

On 6/6/26 16:19, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 02:43:15 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     Did you ever use SeeTron or equiv "serial"
>>     displays ? If it could do RS-232, even by crude bit-banging, it would
>>     work. LCD was kinda new back then - most were VFD. Got one to work
>>     with a PIC-12xxx chip once.
> 
> I don't think so. The handheld pH meters had a custom LCD, but I can't
> remember the interface. If I did it with an 8049 it wasn't very complex.

   Well, RS-232 is so BASIC ... ergo those devices
   would work with almost ANYTHING - even PIC-12xxx
   if needed.

   But they weren't cheap.

   Got in my LCD displays ... suprisingly actually a
   tad LARGER than a PI-0. Gotta find DOCS though,
   nothing in the box.

   Anyway, five, six, maybe seven slow-scrolling lines
   of basic stats - that's ALL I want. Quick ref. The
   displays are super-cheap ... ideal for the use .....

   I2C displays work. NOT sophisticated or fast but
   FUNCTIONAL and generally just 4 wires. Lots of
   libs for them - Ards/PIs/BBBs/etc.

   And yea still, I really kinda LIKE the look of VFDs.
   They used to be IT ... now they're more an 'option'
   and more expensive. The LCDs will serve my immediate
   need however.

   Will post on a 'web-cam' I got ... TRIED to cheat
   the automatic IR-LED/lens-switch by pulling plugs
   (hey, I always take such things APART). No good.
   Fair cam - but, as said, need tricks. For NOW just
   taped black cardboard over the IR LEDs .....

   As for "seetron" ... appears to be mostly defunct.
   Kinda sad.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87660

On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 05:54:51 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Got in my LCD displays ... suprisingly actually a tad LARGER than a
>    PI-0. Gotta find DOCS though, nothing in the box.

The ones i have are 2.25 x 3.75 inches OA. Some of that is the circuit 
board. Unlike the old days you don't get a data sheet with anything. There 
are libs for Arduino, MicroPython, and CircuitPython to handle all the I2C 
bit banging.

https://randomnerdtutorials.com/micropython-i2c-lcd-esp32-esp8266/

Even the SSD1306 OLEDs are easy with the libraries though you do have to 
do more work for graphing etc. 

For your next project:

https://hackaday.com/2026/06/06/pi-pico-demos-therefore-it-is/

My eyes glassed over about 15 minutes in but then I never liked screwing 
around with OpenGL. Still, it's impressive and the guy knows his way 
around a 2340. I like the part about using a debug flag to intercept the 
GPIO output without using the pins.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87196

On 27/05/2026 04:21, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2026 23:04:18 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     Now, can I do LoRa with like a higher-end Ard ? PIs are nice but
>>     they're power hogs, can't 'sleep'. Haven't looked into the
>>     BeagleBones recently ... DO have a BBB in The Heap somewhere though.
> 
> https://store.arduino.cc/products/arduino-mkr-wan-1310
> 
Pico Pis can me made to sleep with the addition of a TPL5110 nanotimer.

I am looking at over a year battery life on 3xAA  lithium primaries.


-- 
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the 
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87319 — WiFi range ...

On 2026-05-25 22:27, c186282 wrote:
> On 5/25/26 13:56, rbowman wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 May 2026 01:46:15 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway ... NOW I may have a use for RF "modems",
>>> a link to a kind of far-off property site. Do not need video, MAYbe the
>>> odd still image. The low speed isn't relevant, just the range. WiFi
>>> isn't gonna cut it at all.
>>
>> How far off? 
> 
> 
>    About 1000 meters.

My company's high reliability radios use essentially 20 year old WiFi 
technology, and we have customers than routinely run them over distances 
of 5-10 km. It is not the technology per se that limits distance; it is 
the cheap off-the-shelf gear that is crap.

We use an 802.11b modulator, in 900 MHz or 2400 MHz bands, at speeds 
from 100 kbps effective data transfer rates to 8Mbps. We do NOT us the 
802.11 MAC layers, because we WANT to be guaranteed to be incompatible 
with WiFi. We pair this modem chipset with a very good front-end (low 
noise receive amplifier and very clean, very linear power amplifier. And 
then we put good directional antennas on them. We have one customer who 
runs a 100km radio link with a 27dBi antenna at 500mW (27 dBm) power 
output. For years.

I bet many commercial WiFi radios if paired with a decent front-end and 
a good antenna, even an 18dBi panel antenna, would give you a reliable 
link over 5km/3miles, so long as you have a clean line of sight. Its not 
really that hard.

-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87320 — Re: WiFi range ...

>On Sun, 31 May 2026 21:19:08 -0700, Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>On 2026-05-25 22:27, c186282 wrote:
>> On 5/25/26 13:56, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 May 2026 01:46:15 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyway ... NOW I may have a use for RF "modems",
>>>> a link to a kind of far-off property site. Do not need video, MAYbe the
>>>> odd still image. The low speed isn't relevant, just the range. WiFi
>>>> isn't gonna cut it at all.
>>>
>>> How far off?
>>
>>
>>    About 1000 meters.
>
>My company's high reliability radios use essentially 20 year old WiFi
>technology, and we have customers than routinely run them over distances
>of 5-10 km. It is not the technology per se that limits distance; it is
>the cheap off-the-shelf gear that is crap.
>
>We use an 802.11b modulator, in 900 MHz or 2400 MHz bands, at speeds
>from 100 kbps effective data transfer rates to 8Mbps. We do NOT us the
>802.11 MAC layers, because we WANT to be guaranteed to be incompatible
>with WiFi. We pair this modem chipset with a very good front-end (low
>noise receive amplifier and very clean, very linear power amplifier. And
>then we put good directional antennas on them. We have one customer who
>runs a 100km radio link with a 27dBi antenna at 500mW (27 dBm) power
>output. For years.
>
>I bet many commercial WiFi radios if paired with a decent front-end and
>a good antenna, even an 18dBi panel antenna, would give you a reliable
>link over 5km/3miles, so long as you have a clean line of sight. Its not
>really that hard.

For a 1 km link, I would start with the boring purpose-built gear rather than
trying to make ordinary indoor WiFi stretch that far.  A pair of outdoor
CPE/bridge units with directional panels will usually be far less fiddly than
routers plus random antennas.

The practical checks are mostly RF geometry, not Linux-specific:

* clear line of sight, including some Fresnel-zone clearance;
* fixed mounting and careful alignment at both ends;
* outdoor-rated cable/enclosures and proper grounding/lightning protection;
* enough margin for rain, leaves, and future clutter in the path.

If only low-rate data and the occasional still image are needed, backing the
link down to a slower modulation/rate can buy a lot of reliability.  Once the
bridge is up, Linux just sees an Ethernet path, which is the nicest possible
outcome.

-- 
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null>
"I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87354 — Re: WiFi range ...

On 2026-05-31 21:26, TheLastSysop wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 May 2026 21:19:08 -0700, Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> wrote:
>> On 2026-05-25 22:27, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 5/25/26 13:56, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 May 2026 01:46:15 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway ... NOW I may have a use for RF "modems",
>>>>> a link to a kind of far-off property site. Do not need video, MAYbe the
>>>>> odd still image. The low speed isn't relevant, just the range. WiFi
>>>>> isn't gonna cut it at all.
>>>>
>>>> How far off?
>>>
>>>
>>>     About 1000 meters.
>>
>> My company's high reliability radios use essentially 20 year old WiFi
>> technology, and we have customers than routinely run them over distances
>> of 5-10 km. It is not the technology per se that limits distance; it is
>> the cheap off-the-shelf gear that is crap.
>>
>> We use an 802.11b modulator, in 900 MHz or 2400 MHz bands, at speeds
>>from 100 kbps effective data transfer rates to 8Mbps. We do NOT us the
>> 802.11 MAC layers, because we WANT to be guaranteed to be incompatible
>> with WiFi. We pair this modem chipset with a very good front-end (low
>> noise receive amplifier and very clean, very linear power amplifier. And
>> then we put good directional antennas on them. We have one customer who
>> runs a 100km radio link with a 27dBi antenna at 500mW (27 dBm) power
>> output. For years.
>>
>> I bet many commercial WiFi radios if paired with a decent front-end and
>> a good antenna, even an 18dBi panel antenna, would give you a reliable
>> link over 5km/3miles, so long as you have a clean line of sight. Its not
>> really that hard.
> 
> For a 1 km link, I would start with the boring purpose-built gear rather than
> trying to make ordinary indoor WiFi stretch that far.  A pair of outdoor
> CPE/bridge units with directional panels will usually be far less fiddly than
> routers plus random antennas.
> 
> The practical checks are mostly RF geometry, not Linux-specific:
> 
> * clear line of sight, including some Fresnel-zone clearance;
> * fixed mounting and careful alignment at both ends;
> * outdoor-rated cable/enclosures and proper grounding/lightning protection;
> * enough margin for rain, leaves, and future clutter in the path.
> 
> If only low-rate data and the occasional still image are needed, backing the
> link down to a slower modulation/rate can buy a lot of reliability.  Once the
> bridge is up, Linux just sees an Ethernet path, which is the nicest possible
> outcome.

Bravo. You are hitting all the requirements for it to work.

My point was that it is not the RF technology (modulation, frequency 
band etc) that limit the range of WiFi, just a general sloppiness in the 
way 99.9% use the gear with no respect for microwave propagation 
characteristics.

-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87325

c186282 wrote:

> rbowman wrote:
> >> c186282 wrote:
>>
>>> I may have a use for RF "modems",
>>> a link to a kind of far-off property site. Do not need video, MAYbe the
>>> odd still image. The low speed isn't relevant, just the range. WiFi
>>> isn't gonna cut it at all.
>>
>> How far off? 
> 
>    About 1000 meters.
>    NO power utilities there.
Maybe look at specialised WiFi?  802.11ah HaLow

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87326

>On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 08:10:41 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>c186282 wrote:
>
>> rbowman wrote:
>> >> c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>> I may have a use for RF "modems",
>>>> a link to a kind of far-off property site. Do not need video, MAYbe the
>>>> odd still image. The low speed isn't relevant, just the range. WiFi
>>>> isn't gonna cut it at all.
>>>
>>> How far off?
>>
>>    About 1000 meters.
>>    NO power utilities there.
>Maybe look at specialised WiFi?  802.11ah HaLow

For 1000 m and no mains, I would split the question into "link budget" and
"power budget" before buying anything.

If there is clean line of sight, a pair of outdoor point-to-point CPE radios
(Ubiquiti/MikroTik/TP-Link CPE type kit) is usually simpler than old-style RF
modems and can be throttled down to very little traffic.  The catch is that the
remote end still needs a small panel, battery, charge controller and a
weatherproof enclosure, so idle power matters more than peak throughput.

If it is not line-of-sight, or if the remote end is just sending occasional
sensor data/status and maybe not images, then LoRa/LoRaWAN-type gear is worth a
look.  It is much easier to run from a small battery/solar setup, but it is not
a substitute for an IP-ish link with images.

HaLow sits between those worlds.  I would check local regulatory limits and the
actual antenna options before assuming it beats a boring directional 2.4/5 GHz
bridge at only 1 km.

-- 
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null>
"I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87353

On 6/1/26 03:33, TheLastSysop wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 08:10:41 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> c186282 wrote:
>>
>>> rbowman wrote:
>>>>> c186282 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I may have a use for RF "modems",
>>>>> a link to a kind of far-off property site. Do not need video, MAYbe the
>>>>> odd still image. The low speed isn't relevant, just the range. WiFi
>>>>> isn't gonna cut it at all.
>>>>
>>>> How far off?
>>>
>>>     About 1000 meters.
>>>     NO power utilities there.
>> Maybe look at specialised WiFi?  802.11ah HaLow
> 
> For 1000 m and no mains, I would split the question into "link budget" and
> "power budget" before buying anything.

   The LINKS - several variants - seem to be affordable.
   At 400/900mhz seem to have good range and obstacle
   immunity.

   The power budget - always a tricky equation. Plenty
   of lithium chargers that plug into PV panels. The
   "Seeed" brand, "LiPo Rider Plus", are the best - no
   voltage spikes even at low/no demand.

   My old dataloggers could get by on a 5w panel just
   fine. However they didn't xmit anything, just
   recorded to a card. Came out of sleep every 15
   minutes.

   However transmitting can use up a lot more power.
   Anything 'on demand' like a camera frame will
   use up more, transiently.

> If there is clean line of sight, a pair of outdoor point-to-point CPE radios
> (Ubiquiti/MikroTik/TP-Link CPE type kit) is usually simpler than old-style RF
> modems and can be throttled down to very little traffic.  The catch is that the
> remote end still needs a small panel, battery, charge controller and a
> weatherproof enclosure, so idle power matters more than peak throughput.

   My line-of-sight is NOT "clean" ... ergo the interest
   in lower-freq links.

> If it is not line-of-sight, or if the remote end is just sending occasional
> sensor data/status and maybe not images, then LoRa/LoRaWAN-type gear is worth a
> look.  It is much easier to run from a small battery/solar setup, but it is not
> a substitute for an IP-ish link with images.
> 
> HaLow sits between those worlds.  I would check local regulatory limits and the
> actual antenna options before assuming it beats a boring directional 2.4/5 GHz
> bridge at only 1 km.

   Still looking in to What's Out There these days.
   A few possibly good options - also a few that,
   on consideration, probably won't cut it.

   Gotta run a few numbers yet, then I'll decide.

   PIs are OUT ... massive power hogs. Good
   microcontrollers give much more control.

   Anyway, fun project ! Tired of not knowing
   what's going on at my other property too.
   If it's on fire I wanna know. If squats
   set up a camp, I wanna know. If shits are
   dumping trash, I wanna know.

   I know a guy with a bucket-truck - for a few
   bucks he could screw an instrument package to
   one of the tall trees. Olive-drab canvas
   strips with an odd splurt of 'primer' brown
   and it'd look perfectly natural unless you
   actually climbed the tree. The panel can go
   on top, angled up maybe 40 degrees, kind of
   invisible. Have had to use 'disguise' before
   in semi-public areas.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87352

On 6/1/26 03:10, Andy Burns wrote:
> c186282 wrote:
> 
>> rbowman wrote:
>> >> c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>> I may have a use for RF "modems",
>>>> a link to a kind of far-off property site. Do not need video, MAYbe the
>>>> odd still image. The low speed isn't relevant, just the range. WiFi
>>>> isn't gonna cut it at all.
>>>
>>> How far off? 
>>
>>    About 1000 meters.
>>    NO power utilities there.
> Maybe look at specialised WiFi?  802.11ah HaLow

   "Lo-RA" ? That's been recommended for the described
   range and need. Am looking into it.

   A few other suggestions too. 900mhz band may be
   the 'best' - less speed but more range and more
   immunity to common obstacles. Old days (and a
   few are still sold) 400mhz might also meet my
   modest needs with even better obstacle immunity.
   Clearly "live audio", which would be a NICE
   option, is gonna be just too much bandwidth.
   Can live without that.

   Anyway, need a few little weather sensors and
   the ability to request video FRAMES on demand.
   That's kinda do-able at about a mile's range
   without licenses or such govt BS. It has to run
   on maybe a 10-20w solar panel (easy to hide).
   Don't need constant data, just kinda "on demand".

   I've done multi-sensor dataloggers before, know
   how to code it, wire 'em down to the chips etc.
   Made a dozen based on the Ard 2560 - good
   'sleep'/low-power lib. They didn't xmit though,
   just saved to an SD card. Worked for many years.
   Got by on just a 5w panel.

   Somebody here said their company/group made
   really good 802.11 RF links - but did not
   name the maker.

   Long back such devices didn't even pretend to be
   network connections - just serial modems. That
   worked and was less complicated. Linux still has
   all the needed utils to cope with serial comms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87355

On 2026-06-01 22:15, c186282 wrote:
>    Somebody here said their company/group made
>    really good 802.11 RF links - but did not
>    name the maker.

You would not want to buy ours. For starters, we'd charge
you about $3K per node. And we are planning to close the business in a year.

-- 
Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87359

On 6/2/26 01:50, Lars Poulsen wrote:
> On 2026-06-01 22:15, c186282 wrote:
>>    Somebody here said their company/group made
>>    really good 802.11 RF links - but did not
>>    name the maker.
> 
> You would not want to buy ours. For starters, we'd charge
> you about $3K per node. And we are planning to close the business in a 
> year.

   At $3k I can see why :-)

   Another old govt/industrial "solution" idiots
   would vastly over-pay for ???

   There are MUCH cheaper LoRa and related to be
   found online these days.

   2.4 is too obstacle-sensitive for my need, but
   900/400 can work.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web