Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #37378 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-12-09 10:47 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-12-25 18:44 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi
More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-09 10:47 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-12-09 11:57 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-09 14:07 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-12-09 19:14 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-09 19:17 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-09 21:19 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-12-10 05:18 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-10 00:27 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-12-10 05:38 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-10 02:13 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-12-10 08:12 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-12-10 08:15 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-10 03:56 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-12-10 09:14 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 09:59 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-10 05:02 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 10:24 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-10 05:53 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 11:45 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-11 22:06 +0100
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-12 10:26 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-12-12 10:39 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-12 11:14 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-12-12 11:41 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-12 12:10 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-13 01:19 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-12 12:19 +0100
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-12 12:10 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-12 23:42 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-13 13:30 +0100
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-11 22:03 +0100
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 09:57 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 09:55 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-10 05:36 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 11:33 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 09:47 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-10 05:29 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 11:29 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2025-12-10 13:01 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 13:05 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-10 23:19 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-10 23:12 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-11 08:48 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-11 04:19 -0500
Cable chasing (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2025-12-11 10:15 +0000
Inside out (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2025-12-11 10:23 +0000
Re: Inside out (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2025-12-11 18:16 +0000
Re: Inside out (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> - 2025-12-11 18:28 +0000
Re: Inside out (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-11 21:59 +0100
Re: Inside out (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-12 11:21 +0000
Re: Inside out (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-13 13:45 +0100
Re: Inside out (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2025-12-14 06:38 +0000
Re: Inside out (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-15 19:19 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-11 22:18 +0100
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-12 10:41 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-13 13:57 +0100
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-12 11:28 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-13 13:56 +0100
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> - 2025-12-14 19:22 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2025-12-24 07:58 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-24 12:16 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> - 2025-12-24 14:04 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-24 14:23 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-12-24 17:00 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-24 20:07 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2025-12-24 23:17 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-25 03:23 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-25 07:32 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-24 21:16 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-27 21:51 +0100
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-27 23:31 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-27 23:58 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2025-12-24 23:01 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-25 02:29 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2025-12-24 22:53 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-12-25 03:25 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-25 03:34 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-12-25 10:43 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-25 11:43 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-25 18:44 +0000
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 10:47 +0000 |
| Subject | More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor |
| Message-ID | <10h8unl$oq21$1@dont-email.me> |
First of all thanks to all those who responded on my first efforts to put a battery power Pi Pico W outside and have it phone home. Having eliminated temperature and supply voltage as issues, I delved into wifi and router logs, and it was clear that it was sometimes getting a DHCP lease and even occasionally opening a TCP/IP connections and sending data. And might be dependent on where I parked the car and the weather. I tried putting a tin tray behind the router and that made it worse. Now the layout was that a ground floor router through the window and the garage was not very good at about 30m range. Then I remembered I had put an Ethernet port in an upstairs bedroom by the window in case I wanted to use it as an office. It was further away - 35m or so - but much less cluttered path. It just had to go through a corner of the garage. Instantly the router reported about 8-10dB more signal and almost reliable comms resulted. Now instead of 1 in 10 connections working,m I have one in ten connections *not* working.The limit seems to be about -93dBm reported on the Pi Pico and about -90dBM reported on the router/access point. What seems to be the key is uncluttered line of sight for as much of the distance as possible. And wind and rain. There are trees /bushes behind and the last two days have been very wet and very windy. And I have seen good connections drop without sending data and reported signal levels up to 10dB worse. On the plus side for those contemplating similar, the ultrasonic module seems flawless.. (HC-SR04) and the original one worked down to about 4V. I believe newer ones will do down to 3.3V. Also the nano power timers (TPL5110) works OK. Although it needed 100uF across the output power rails to stop it oscillating :( The whole thing seems to be accurate to a couple of litres in a 2500 litre tank. (I spent several hours trying to remember enough high school trigonometry to work out the area of a chord. ) All in all the reliability of the wireless is about the same as the old commercial (465Mhz) sensor except that that needed the receiver where I could read it. The luxury of just looking on a web browser makes the whole thing worth while, as is knowing exactly when the batteries are running out. So far in about 6 weeks of battery testing the 3 x AAs have gone from '4.6V' to '4.4V' . Battery replacement does not need the whole unit to be removed. Simply a battery holder and cover with a simple 2 pin battery plug. The hassle of setting up the C SDK is worth it as there is much that Python cannot do. And I am hoping never ever to have to spend two hours bleeding 60 metres of partially air filled oil line when the tank runs dry (or is emptied by thieves) There are apparently blue tooth solutions that talk to yiur mobile phone, but once again, the phone needs to be in range... Anyway thanks to all who helped, and the upshot is that liquid levels sensing with battery powered ultrasonics and a wifi link is perfectly doable and depending on circumstance, very worth doing. And I knew all that trig would come in handy one day :-) -- No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 11:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mpqh4mFb4fpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #37378 |
The Natural Philosopher wrote: > might be dependent on where I parked the car Monitoring within the appliance bays of multiple fire stations, certainly shows signal levels exhibiting high and low levels depending whether the truck is in or out ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 14:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10h9aen$s0tc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37382 |
On 09/12/2025 11:57, Andy Burns wrote: > The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> might be dependent on where I parked the car > > Monitoring within the appliance bays of multiple fire stations, > certainly shows signal levels exhibiting high and low levels depending > whether the truck is in or out ... > Umm. Well now the rain has gone and the wind died down a little I am getting +6dB better signal. I could move the car... I'll park that one (sic") till I use the car again, then I'll move it ... -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10h9sfd$10ppd$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37383 |
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 09/12/2025 11:57, Andy Burns wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> might be dependent on where I parked the car >> >> Monitoring within the appliance bays of multiple fire stations, >> certainly shows signal levels exhibiting high and low levels depending >> whether the truck is in or out ... >> > Umm. Well now the rain has gone and the wind died down a little I am > getting +6dB better signal. I could move the car... > > I'll park that one (sic") till I use the car again, then I'll move it ... Water greatly absorbs 2.4Ghz signals, so it is not surprising you see stronger signals once the extra "water" is no longer in the signal path.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 19:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10h9sl5$11cvm$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37391 |
On 09/12/2025 19:14, Rich wrote: > In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 09/12/2025 11:57, Andy Burns wrote: >>> The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>>> might be dependent on where I parked the car >>> >>> Monitoring within the appliance bays of multiple fire stations, >>> certainly shows signal levels exhibiting high and low levels depending >>> whether the truck is in or out ... >>> >> Umm. Well now the rain has gone and the wind died down a little I am >> getting +6dB better signal. I could move the car... >> >> I'll park that one (sic") till I use the car again, then I'll move it ... > > Water greatly absorbs 2.4Ghz signals, so it is not surprising you see > stronger signals once the extra "water" is no longer in the signal > path. I knew that theoretically, but it was interesting to see it playing out in practice... Also the difference waving foliage made... -- "What do you think about Gay Marriage?" "I don't." "Don't what?" "Think about Gay Marriage."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 21:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <R4KcneQYkYc3RaX0nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37382 |
On 12/9/25 06:57, Andy Burns wrote: > The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> might be dependent on where I parked the car > > Monitoring within the appliance bays of multiple fire stations, > certainly shows signal levels exhibiting high and low levels depending > whether the truck is in or out ... Wi-Fi is sometimes just black magic ... Simply just moving things just a couple of inches oft makes an unreasonable difference. 2.4 tends to have better range indoors than 5ghz - making up for the lower xfer rate by being Reliable. 5G phone can be just as spooky. 6G phone ... I saw somewhere that a theoretical 'dynamic signal steering' tech might help - but real-world that's still to be seen. Robots ... with current tech they will depend on being able to connect their tiny AIs to a BIG AI somewhere else so they can do much more. BUT, if 6G is horrible, then what ? If monitoring 'emergency vehicles/installations' is critical, maybe consider something using lower frequencies than wi-fi ??? In USA I think there's a designated comm space in the 400mhz band. It'd still be good enough for a 1-fps camera feed. Ah ... POTENTIAL cheap solution. Haven't fooled with it in about 10 years but I think it's still possible with Linux. Just buy one of those wi-fi extender/repeater thingies (about $50 USD) and put it not far from the main router. Make it wlan1. At least with wpasupplicant and dhcpcd.conf you could designate an automatic "fall over" in case the main signal got crappy. Not 100% sure what happens now with apps if you list a wlan0 and wlan1 at the same time - will the app just use whichever, or both, without complaints ??? Between the two, 'shadow' areas ought to largely go away. Pity nobody makes a 5ghz "viewer" so you can get at least a fuzzy picture of the signal at different places :-) I have a repeater to reach an out-building. Gonna try to add it as wlan1 just to see what happens ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 05:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mpse55FksliU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #37394 |
c186282 wrote: > If monitoring 'emergency vehicles/installations' > is critical, maybe consider something using lower > frequencies than wi-fi ??? Nah, it was mostly "for interest" to gather a few more values from kit that's already being monitored. Someone else mentioned water (presumably as rain) don't forget the fire appliances carry around their own water, but hopefully it's low down for CoG reasons, while the access points are mounted higher up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 00:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tbmcnYMWOsEgmaT0nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37395 |
On 12/10/25 00:18, Andy Burns wrote: > c186282 wrote: > >> If monitoring 'emergency vehicles/installations' >> is critical, maybe consider something using lower >> frequencies than wi-fi ??? > > Nah, it was mostly "for interest" to gather a few more values from kit > that's already being monitored. Someone else mentioned water (presumably > as rain) don't forget the fire appliances carry around their own water, > but hopefully it's low down for CoG reasons, while the access points are > mounted higher up. Fair enough. Now if real, legal, 'security' was an issue then you'd want a solid connection all of the time ... and one wi-fi point likely won't provide that. Did a very quick look at fail-over network connections, but almost everything assumes multiple routers and perhaps iptables nastiness. Easiest ... add one wifi extender, log into the camera, see whether you get more bars with the main or the extender.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 05:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mpsf9uFl3fkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #37396 |
c186282 wrote: > Now if real, legal, 'security' was an issue > then you'd want a solid connection all of > the time ... and one wi-fi point likely won't > provide that. Only the largest couple of stations have multiple APs in the bay. The building and individual vehicles have 4G, and the buildings form a meshed POCSAG network between neighbouring towns (or parts of cities).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 02:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QvycnZh6Nqk2gKT0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37397 |
On 12/10/25 00:38, Andy Burns wrote: > c186282 wrote: > >> Now if real, legal, 'security' was an issue >> then you'd want a solid connection all of >> the time ... and one wi-fi point likely won't >> provide that. > > Only the largest couple of stations have multiple APs in the bay. The > building and individual vehicles have 4G, and the buildings form a > meshed POCSAG network between neighbouring towns (or parts of cities). Ummm ... an 'extender' is a bit different from an 'access point' (and cheaper). The extender binds to the access point/router. Connected devices may, as needed, connect to the main point or the address of the extender and still get net access. Wired equiv is more like a hub/switch. I do have experience - like last week - with extenders. Just got in a cheap spare, had to set it up (CAN be slightly confusing but not bad at all). My better extender doubles the range of my good wifi connection, to some out-buildings with some IP cams (and soon a home-built "weather" thing (Pi3 based, have a couple of spares & some 1-wire sensors)). Anyway, judging by the problem you claimed, your easy fix is an extender. Use the main point for cams/devices at point-blank range and put the extender across the bay, best higher up. Use whichever is more reliable for the particular device in the building.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 08:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mpsoasFmgd2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #37398 |
c186282 wrote: > an 'extender' is a bit different from > an 'access point' (and cheaper). The extender > binds to the access point/router. Connected > devices may, as needed, connect to the main > point or the address of the extender and still > get net access. No extenders are in use, but I was indicating that other technologies are involved, which don't depend on each other (though have somewhat of a mutual dependence on power).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 08:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mpsoh2Fmh8iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #37398 |
c186282 wrote: > judging by the problem you claimed, your > easy fix is an extender. I didn't say there was a problem, just that you can notice signal levels go up and down depending on the presence or absence of a big red truck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 03:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JzCdnUoVx_kqqKT0nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37400 |
On 12/10/25 03:15, Andy Burns wrote: > c186282 wrote: > >> judging by the problem you claimed, your >> easy fix is an extender. > > I didn't say there was a problem, just that you can notice signal levels > go up and down depending on the presence or absence of a big red truck. I think it was you ... said how a cam would more or less drop out when the Big Red Truck was there. A well-placed extender could end that for cheap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 09:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mpss0eFn1ecU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #37401 |
c186282 wrote: > I think it was you ... said how a cam would > more or less drop out when the Big Red Truck > was there. No, maybe TNP said his oil level monitor would drop out?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 09:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hbgam$1di3b$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37402 |
On 10/12/2025 09:14, Andy Burns wrote: > c186282 wrote: > >> I think it was you ... said how a cam would >> more or less drop out when the Big Red Truck >> was there. > No, maybe TNP said his oil level monitor would drop out? > Well that's what started it. he confirmed it with a Big Red Truck™ anecdote. Anyway its all more or less confirmation that wifi is unstable and to be avoided if possible., and to be treated with suspicion if you have to deploy it. -- “A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say, “We did this ourselves.” ― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 05:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u4mdnV7bI6vZ2KT0nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37402 |
On 12/10/25 04:14, Andy Burns wrote: > c186282 wrote: > >> I think it was you ... said how a cam would >> more or less drop out when the Big Red Truck >> was there. > No, maybe TNP said his oil level monitor would drop out? Posting traffic has considerably increased of late, partly my "fault" ... but COSLM was kind of dying and that would have been tragic. Forgive the sort of off-topic stuff, but it DOES keep minds alive - you can't ALWAYS think about Linux without kind of seizing up :-) I do try to insert at least a little computing/ algo/Linux in as much as opportune. I've had to skip subject threading because of all the new postings ... just datetime sorting now. So, yes, I might have mixed you and another poster up a bit. However that poster WAS complaining of drop-outs due to changes in the physical environ ... ie large fire trucks pulling in and blocking the wifi signal. For that, my rec of a decently placed wifi extender IS a good cheap fix. If you keep getting interference, try switching the IP cam to the extender and see how that works .... a $49.95 solution ........
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 10:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hbhol$1di3b$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37407 |
On 10/12/2025 10:02, c186282 wrote: > On 12/10/25 04:14, Andy Burns wrote: >> c186282 wrote: >> >>> I think it was you ... said how a cam would >>> more or less drop out when the Big Red Truck >>> was there. >> No, maybe TNP said his oil level monitor would drop out? > > Posting traffic has considerably increased of late, > partly my "fault" ... but COSLM was kind of dying > and that would have been tragic. Forgive the sort > of off-topic stuff, but it DOES keep minds alive - > you can't ALWAYS think about Linux without kind > of seizing up :-) > I stated for te record and for the interest of others doing outside wifi coupled IOT shit that rain wind and possibly cars made a difference. Someone else remarked that so did fire trucks. The downside of the new oil monitor is that is is so accurate - to within a litre it seems - that I can visibly see how much a shower or washing the dishes costs me, and a cold night is very expensive. :-) LOL. Now off to write the software that will look at it for me and warn me of things by email. So I can get on with the next project. -- “A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say, “We did this ourselves.” ― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 05:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u4mdnVnbI6uBzKT0nZ2dnZfqn_SdYIGF@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37409 |
On 12/10/25 05:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 10/12/2025 10:02, c186282 wrote: >> On 12/10/25 04:14, Andy Burns wrote: >>> c186282 wrote: >>> >>>> I think it was you ... said how a cam would >>>> more or less drop out when the Big Red Truck >>>> was there. >>> No, maybe TNP said his oil level monitor would drop out? >> >> Posting traffic has considerably increased of late, >> partly my "fault" ... but COSLM was kind of dying >> and that would have been tragic. Forgive the sort >> of off-topic stuff, but it DOES keep minds alive - >> you can't ALWAYS think about Linux without kind >> of seizing up :-) >> > I stated for te record and for the interest of others doing outside wifi > coupled IOT shit that rain wind and possibly cars made a difference. > > Someone else remarked that so did fire trucks. > > The downside of the new oil monitor is that is is so accurate - to > within a litre it seems - that I can visibly see how much a shower or > washing the dishes costs me, and a cold night is very expensive. :-) > LOL. > > Now off to write the software that will look at it for me and warn me of > things by email. > So I can get on with the next project. Somebody said something interesting ... that the effect of the Big Red Truck on the wifi signal kind of turned it into a radio proximity sensor. Ya know, THAT might be useful ...... As for The Project ... with enough interesting input The Project might change ... to something More Interesting :-) Hmmm ... My stuff gives off wifi, and there are a few neighbors too. MIGHT be I could sample signal strength and come up with certain 'fingerprints' - like of vehicles driving by or, more important, the Amazon truck pulling into my driveway ... BEEP !!! See how little stuff can spawn bigger ideas ? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 11:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hbmg5$1di3b$27@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37412 |
On 10/12/2025 10:53, c186282 wrote: > On 12/10/25 05:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 10/12/2025 10:02, c186282 wrote: >>> On 12/10/25 04:14, Andy Burns wrote: >>>> c186282 wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think it was you ... said how a cam would >>>>> more or less drop out when the Big Red Truck >>>>> was there. >>>> No, maybe TNP said his oil level monitor would drop out? >>> >>> Posting traffic has considerably increased of late, >>> partly my "fault" ... but COSLM was kind of dying >>> and that would have been tragic. Forgive the sort >>> of off-topic stuff, but it DOES keep minds alive - >>> you can't ALWAYS think about Linux without kind >>> of seizing up :-) >>> >> I stated for te record and for the interest of others doing outside >> wifi coupled IOT shit that rain wind and possibly cars made a difference. >> >> Someone else remarked that so did fire trucks. >> >> The downside of the new oil monitor is that is is so accurate - to >> within a litre it seems - that I can visibly see how much a shower or >> washing the dishes costs me, and a cold night is very expensive. :-) >> LOL. >> >> Now off to write the software that will look at it for me and warn me >> of things by email. >> So I can get on with the next project. > > Somebody said something interesting ... that > the effect of the Big Red Truck on the wifi > signal kind of turned it into a radio proximity > sensor. Ya know, THAT might be useful ...... > That was in fact how Radar was born. Engineers noted that HF radio was affected by planes flying overhead. Chain Home was built to run between 20MHz and 55MHz. The Germans sent a Zeppelin to investigate,m but they spotted it miles away and switched it off. Germany thought the frequency was too low for proper radiolocation. They thought it was probably a LORAN style system for navigation. At that time I don't think a radio valve (tube) was much uses over about 150MHz. They had to sue klystrons and later magnetrons for transmitting GigaHertz stuff. > As for The Project ... with enough interesting > input The Project might change ... to something > More Interesting :-) > > Hmmm ... My stuff gives off wifi, and there are a > few neighbors too. MIGHT be I could sample signal > strength and come up with certain 'fingerprints' - > like of vehicles driving by or, more important, > the Amazon truck pulling into my driveway ... > BEEP !!! > It is certainly doable at 2.4 GHz. Build a directional mirror - parabolic, and send a wifi signal up it. Point it away from a similarly equipped receiver, and wait for something to reflect it back. Or just spend $2 for one already built ready to hook up to your Pi. https://thepihut.com/products/microwave-motion-sensor-rcwl-0516 > See how little stuff can spawn bigger ideas ? :-) > > -- "Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will let them."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-11 22:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3bor0mxr8h.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #37409 |
On 2025-12-10 11:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 10/12/2025 10:02, c186282 wrote: >> On 12/10/25 04:14, Andy Burns wrote: >>> c186282 wrote: >>> >>>> I think it was you ... said how a cam would >>>> more or less drop out when the Big Red Truck >>>> was there. >>> No, maybe TNP said his oil level monitor would drop out? >> >> Posting traffic has considerably increased of late, >> partly my "fault" ... but COSLM was kind of dying >> and that would have been tragic. Forgive the sort >> of off-topic stuff, but it DOES keep minds alive - >> you can't ALWAYS think about Linux without kind >> of seizing up :-) >> > I stated for te record and for the interest of others doing outside wifi > coupled IOT shit that rain wind and possibly cars made a difference. > > Someone else remarked that so did fire trucks. > > The downside of the new oil monitor is that is is so accurate - to > within a litre it seems - that I can visibly see how much a shower or > washing the dishes costs me, and a cold night is very expensive. :-) > LOL. > > Now off to write the software that will look at it for me and warn me of > things by email. > So I can get on with the next project. You mentioned thieves stealing fuel. You can also monitor for that. You would need a fuel flow meter on the fuel line, or a sensor telling when the furnace is working. Compare with the tank level decreasing rapidly. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi
csiph-web