Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #78549 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-12-09 10:47 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-12-24 22:53 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 99 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
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 Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-202512.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2025-12-14 19:23 +0100
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-15 01:55 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-15 17:49 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-16 01:50 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-16 10:43 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-16 20:40 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-17 01:05 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-17 01:55 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-17 10:31 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-17 06:25 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-18 19:00 +0100
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-19 00:55 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-19 15:16 +0100
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-20 03:26 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-20 13:00 +0100
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-17 00:20 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-17 01:01 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-15 23:45 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-16 23:31 +0100
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-12-16 16:35 -0800
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-17 01:38 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-17 01:20 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-17 07:58 +0000
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-17 03:24 -0500
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-17 20:39 +0100
Re: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-15 17:46 +0000
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: 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
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 11:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hblqd$1di3b$26@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78652 |
On 10/12/2025 10:36, c186282 wrote: > On 12/10/25 04:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 10/12/2025 05:27, c186282 wrote: >> nastiness. >>> >>> Easiest ... add one wifi extender, log into >>> the camera, see whether you get more bars >>> with the main or the extender. >>> >> >> Actually something that might be of interest... >> >> # iwlist wlan0 scanning | grep -e Cell -e Channel -e Quality -e >> Encrypt -e ESSID >> >> Shows all stations visible to a ZeroW ... run it as root... >> >> Cell 01 - Address: 00:1D:AA:79:78:40 >> Channel:7 >> Frequency:2.442 GHz (Channel 7) >> Quality=44/70 Signal level=-66 dBm >> Encryption key:on >> ESSID:"Wifi1" >> Cell 02 - Address: 30:46:9A:A2:89:F6 >> Channel:13 >> Frequency:2.472 GHz (Channel 13) >> Quality=51/70 Signal level=-59 dBm >> Encryption key:on >> ESSID:"wifi2" >> Cell 03 - Address: 74:4D:28:4A:21:86 >> Channel:3 >> Frequency:2.422 GHz (Channel 3) >> Quality=35/70 Signal level=-75 dBm >> Encryption key:on >> ESSID:"wifi3" >> etc etc. > > Interesting. > > DOES show a number of "cells" ... but not the ESSID of > my extender for some reason. > That may be spoofing someone elses... Try' iwlist wlan0 scanning' on its own Ther is a lot more info > In theory, this sort of data could be used by a > relatively simple daemon to switch back and > forth to the 'best' signal. The old CL stuff > is fine ... but can sometimes be replaced by > half a dozen lines of more-comprehensible Python. > Its called 'network manager' but its not very good. > > > -- “Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,” – Ludwig von Mises
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 09:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hbfkb$1di3b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78614 |
On 10/12/2025 02:19, c186282 wrote:
> 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.
>
465Mhz.
Its equally shit really.
I ought to resurrect 27MHz.. that is still free-ish
> 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 ???
>
Depends how they are set up.
> 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 🙂
>
Well they do. Its called a smart phone.
If te phone has 5Ghz wifi then a wifi sniffer app shows all.
> I have a repeater to reach an out-building. Gonna
> try to add it as wlan1 just to see what happens ...
--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 05:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JzCdnUQVx_nm1qT0nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #78642 |
On 12/10/25 04:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 10/12/2025 02:19, c186282 wrote: >> 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. >> > 465Mhz. > Its equally shit really. > I ought to resurrect 27MHz.. that is still free-ish It can be good for some stuff, alas not IP cams and other higher-bandwidth devices. Hmmm ... maybe 300 Hz ? Goes everywhere ! >> 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 ??? >> > Depends how they are set up. IMHO it barely matters ... if you have a router/AP then you can link extenders. Those can, cheaply, deal with certain blank spots in the wifi coverage. >> 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 🙂 >> > Well they do. Its called a smart phone. "Bars" ??? How CRUDE ! :-) I wanna SEE colors on the walls. Maybe next year. Hmm, just found an article about new quantum tech to finely analyze 5+ ghz comb signals. > If te phone has 5Ghz wifi then a wifi sniffer app shows all. > >> I have a repeater to reach an out-building. Gonna >> try to add it as wlan1 just to see what happens ... DID add a wlan1 ... but, as was, not really useful. You could connect to one, or the other, but there's no inherent fail-over. Apparently there IS some software, and/or evil config/iptables, fixes ... but kinda icky. MIGHT be some bridging fixes less odious. Have to research that further. What we WANT is for a device connection to use the BEST signal - whether that's the primary router or an extender - and switch back and forth automatically depending on the connection quality. Looks like it CAN be done ... but ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 11:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hblhu$1di3b$25@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78650 |
On 10/12/2025 10:29, c186282 wrote: > On 12/10/25 04:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> I ought to resurrect 27MHz.. that is still free-ish > > It can be good for some stuff, alas not IP > cams and other higher-bandwidth devices. > Yeah. You can get maybe 50kbps out of 27MHz Probably enough fir a very low res cam., > Hmmm ... maybe 300 Hz ? Goes everywhere ! > Short to medium wave the best, as used in ADSL. >>> Pity nobody makes a 5ghz "viewer" so you can >>> get at least a fuzzy picture of the signal at >>> different places 🙂 >>> >> Well they do. Its called a smart phone. > > "Bars" ??? How CRUDE ! :-) > Er no, Not bars. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=abdelrahman.wifianalyzerpro > I wanna SEE colors on the walls. > Take more LSD > DID add a wlan1 ... but, as was, not really useful. > You could connect to one, or the other, but there's > no inherent fail-over. Apparently there IS some > software, and/or evil config/iptables, fixes ... > but kinda icky. > No,. it just needs setting up. I looked into ot and decided life was too shoryt > What we WANT is for a device connection to use > the BEST signal - whether that's the primary > router or an extender - and switch back and > forth automatically depending on the connection > quality. Looks like it CAN be done ... but .... > Yes. unfortunately that is not how *most* wifi works ] -- In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act. - George Orwell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 13:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hbqv5$1gdcg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78650 |
On 10/12/2025 10:29, c186282 wrote: > What we WANT is for a device connection to use > the BEST signal - whether that's the primary > router or an extender - and switch back and > forth automatically depending on the connection > quality. Looks like it CAN be done ... but .... I have a bunch of Ubiquity UbiFi access points around the house with wired backhaul to the router. They can also work with wireless backhaul, but we were having the house rewired so putting a load of CAT6 in, and a POE switch, was a no-brainer. They do exactly that. As a device moves between areas with different APs the APs detect which has the best signal and the one with the lower signal strength drops the connection. The device then reconnects and picks the one with the stronger signal. They've been in place about four years, now, and seem to work well. -- Cheers, Daniel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 13:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hbr62$1gt1t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78690 |
On 10/12/2025 13:01, Daniel James wrote: > On 10/12/2025 10:29, c186282 wrote: >> What we WANT is for a device connection to use >> the BEST signal - whether that's the primary >> router or an extender - and switch back and >> forth automatically depending on the connection >> quality. Looks like it CAN be done ... but .... > > I have a bunch of Ubiquity UbiFi access points around the house with > wired backhaul to the router. They can also work with wireless backhaul, > but we were having the house rewired so putting a load of CAT6 in, and a > POE switch, was a no-brainer. > > They do exactly that. As a device moves between areas with different APs > the APs detect which has the best signal and the one with the lower > signal strength drops the connection. The device then reconnects and > picks the one with the stronger signal. > Aha. So that's how they do it. No intelligence required in the client So they talk to each other 'my client needs to be your client.' That only happens with me when they go out of range completely. > They've been in place about four years, now, and seem to work well. > -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as foolish, and by the rulers as useful. (Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 23:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VVmdnTvW8qTZ26f0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #78691 |
On 12/10/25 08:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 10/12/2025 13:01, Daniel James wrote: >> On 10/12/2025 10:29, c186282 wrote: >>> What we WANT is for a device connection to use >>> the BEST signal - whether that's the primary >>> router or an extender - and switch back and >>> forth automatically depending on the connection >>> quality. Looks like it CAN be done ... but .... >> >> I have a bunch of Ubiquity UbiFi access points around the house with >> wired backhaul to the router. They can also work with wireless >> backhaul, but we were having the house rewired so putting a load of >> CAT6 in, and a POE switch, was a no-brainer. >> >> They do exactly that. As a device moves between areas with different >> APs the APs detect which has the best signal and the one with the >> lower signal strength drops the connection. The device then reconnects >> and picks the one with the stronger signal. >> > Aha. So that's how they do it. No intelligence required in the client > > So they talk to each other 'my client needs to be your client.' It's very clever. I set up one PI3 to do that, it was in an outbuilding and prone to be moved around. As I recall it was easier to do with older versions of Deb/PI-OS. > That only happens with me when they go out of range completely. I *think* you could set a threshold, so they didn't jump over a momentary interruption. GOTTA look that stuff up again ... alas didn't make any copies of the old setup. It DID work though. I can ALMOST see the config file ... almost .... >> They've been in place about four years, now, and seem to work well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-10 23:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VVmdnTjW8qQD2af0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #78690 |
On 12/10/25 08:01, Daniel James wrote: > On 10/12/2025 10:29, c186282 wrote: >> What we WANT is for a device connection to use >> the BEST signal - whether that's the primary >> router or an extender - and switch back and >> forth automatically depending on the connection >> quality. Looks like it CAN be done ... but .... > > I have a bunch of Ubiquity UbiFi access points around the house with > wired backhaul to the router. They can also work with wireless backhaul, > but we were having the house rewired so putting a load of CAT6 in, and a > POE switch, was a no-brainer. > > They do exactly that. As a device moves between areas with different APs > the APs detect which has the best signal and the one with the lower > signal strength drops the connection. The device then reconnects and > picks the one with the stronger signal. > > They've been in place about four years, now, and seem to work well. Alas I had to re-wire some commercial structures for net/etc over the years, back when I was still young enough to crawl around in ceilings. What a pain in the ass ! The structures were made to spec, 1950s spec, electric and standard telephone, and NO slack for add-ons. I've seen pix of British castles ... they just run lots of pipes on the outsides of the thick stone walls. Works, but you'd never get away with that in modern commercial buildings. Things have to look all neat and tidy. My house is early 50s ... mostly concrete and heavy wood, now a metal roof. Again it was NOT meant for running NEW stuff around. Half the bricks were solid-poured full of concrete. Everybody thought that the 1950s were the pinnacle of modern civ ... "What else WOULD you need to add in ???". I've had good success with wifi 'extenders' - and they're pretty cheap unless you want today's VERY fastest specs. Running two of them now ... one for out-buildings, another for a convoluted corner of the main house with the desktop I never use. Anyway, for the OP, one extender is the solution to his problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-11 08:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10he0h9$237cl$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78747 |
On 11/12/2025 04:12, c186282 wrote: > Everybody thought > that the 1950s were the pinnacle of modern civ ... > "What else WOULD you need to add in ???". Reminds me of a brand new factory in Jo'burg. Solid concrete walls and a tin roof. And nnot a single socket or light that worked. The contractor brought in to fix it spent 20 minutes looking and then said 'Fuck that - get the Kangas' and simply chipped new channels for *everything*. Laid in pipe conduit and got wiring. Before the days of computers that was, let alone networking. We used Telex. -- The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-11 04:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <IIOcnXeLNZINEaf0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #78762 |
On 12/11/25 03:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 11/12/2025 04:12, c186282 wrote: >> Everybody thought >> that the 1950s were the pinnacle of modern civ ... >> "What else WOULD you need to add in ???". > Reminds me of a brand new factory in Jo'burg. Solid concrete walls and a > tin roof. And nnot a single socket or light that worked. > > The contractor brought in to fix it spent 20 minutes looking and then > said 'Fuck that - get the Kangas' and simply chipped new channels for > *everything*. Laid in pipe conduit and got wiring. > > Before the days of computers that was, let alone networking. We used Telex. Esp in the 50s, well, they DID really think they were The Pinnacle. Everyone would always have their rotary-dial telephones, only a few, and need just a very few lights and sockets. So, they built, often large, structures reflecting that philosophy. Solid concrete ... or at least with gaps you could not GET to once construction finished. My last office, they wanted to add a couple of extensions. Had to force the builders to drill a couple of 2" holes through solid concrete lintels just so we could run comm/net cables. The lintels didn't really hold up much weight but were huge regardless. Took them like half a day to put the two holes though the lintels, and they hit a piece of rebar in the process. This was well before crap gypsum-board walls and drop ceilings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-11 10:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Cable chasing (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) |
| Message-ID | <10he5ks$24n80$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78762 |
On 11/12/2025 08:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > The contractor brought in to fix it spent 20 minutes looking and then > said 'Fuck that - get the Kangas' and simply chipped new channels for > *everything*. Laid in pipe conduit and got wiring. That was the sparky's method when we had our (1830-ish, solid brick walls) house rewired a few years ago -- smash out channels in the bricks, lay the cables, plaster over ... and hope the walls still have the strength to hold the roof on. Fortunately we had CAT-6 cables (and some coax TV aerial cables) as well as mains power put in, so most of what we want works more-or-less where we want it. -- Cheers, Daniel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-11 10:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Inside out (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) |
| Message-ID | <10he63d$24n80$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78747 |
On 11/12/2025 04:12, c186282 wrote: > ... they just run lots of pipes on the outsides of the thick stone > walls. Works, but you'd never get away with that in modern > commercial buildings. Things have to look all neat and tidy. Have you SEEN the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris? ... or the Lloyds Insurance building in London, for that matter. -- Cheers, Daniel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-11 18:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Inside out (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) |
| Message-ID | <slrn10jm2j4.18nuq.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> |
| In reply to | #78786 |
On 2025-12-11, Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote: > On 11/12/2025 04:12, c186282 wrote: >> ... they just run lots of pipes on the outsides of the thick stone >> walls. Works, but you'd never get away with that in modern >> commercial buildings. Things have to look all neat and tidy. > > Have you SEEN the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris? > > ... or the Lloyds Insurance building in London, for that matter. I seem to remember hearing that there was an English building code that REQUIRED outside pipes for water (and sewage?) so that they could be easily thawed with a blowtorch when they froze in the winter? -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-11 18:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Inside out (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) |
| Message-ID | <10hf2gl$2282u$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78815 |
On 11/12/2025 18:16, Lars Poulsen wrote: > On 2025-12-11, Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote: >> On 11/12/2025 04:12, c186282 wrote: >>> ... they just run lots of pipes on the outsides of the thick stone >>> walls. Works, but you'd never get away with that in modern >>> commercial buildings. Things have to look all neat and tidy. >> >> Have you SEEN the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris? >> >> ... or the Lloyds Insurance building in London, for that matter. > > I seem to remember hearing that there was an English building code that > REQUIRED outside pipes for water (and sewage?) so that they could be > easily thawed with a blowtorch when they froze in the winter? No, it was only done to save money. John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-11 21:59 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inside out (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) |
| Message-ID | <hunr0mxr8h.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #78817 |
On 2025-12-11 19:28, John R Walliker wrote: > On 11/12/2025 18:16, Lars Poulsen wrote: >> On 2025-12-11, Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote: >>> On 11/12/2025 04:12, c186282 wrote: >>>> ... they just run lots of pipes on the outsides of the thick stone >>>> walls. Works, but you'd never get away with that in modern >>>> commercial buildings. Things have to look all neat and tidy. >>> >>> Have you SEEN the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris? >>> >>> ... or the Lloyds Insurance building in London, for that matter. >> >> I seem to remember hearing that there was an English building code that >> REQUIRED outside pipes for water (and sewage?) so that they could be >> easily thawed with a blowtorch when they froze in the winter? > > No, it was only done to save money. It seems amazing to me doing that in Britain, were pipes can freeze. Now I understand the description of an hotel (Devon) in a novel I'm reading (Ruth Rendell, The secret house of death). -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-12 11:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Inside out (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) |
| Message-ID | <10hgtsb$2r3rh$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78832 |
On 11/12/2025 20:59, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-12-11 19:28, John R Walliker wrote: >> On 11/12/2025 18:16, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>> On 2025-12-11, Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 11/12/2025 04:12, c186282 wrote: >>>>> ... they just run lots of pipes on the outsides of the thick stone >>>>> walls. Works, but you'd never get away with that in modern >>>>> commercial buildings. Things have to look all neat and tidy. >>>> >>>> Have you SEEN the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris? >>>> >>>> ... or the Lloyds Insurance building in London, for that matter. >>> >>> I seem to remember hearing that there was an English building code that >>> REQUIRED outside pipes for water (and sewage?) so that they could be >>> easily thawed with a blowtorch when they froze in the winter? >> >> No, it was only done to save money. > > It seems amazing to me doing that in Britain, were pipes can freeze. Now > I understand the description of an hotel (Devon) in a novel I'm reading > (Ruth Rendell, The secret house of death). > I think the issue is that pre war, many many houses had no water, no inside toilet, no heating beyond a coal fire no electricity and so on. Hence they were upgraded to a water tank in the roof and some form of sporadic mains water supply, fed via something coming out of the ground and into the house. Drainage was often external - room size was small and the pipes were just routed outside for ease of installation. And indeed access for clearing blockages. Retrofitting modern infrastructure to old houses is massively expensive. -- "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them" Margaret Thatcher
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-13 13:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inside out (Was: More on wifi range - Pi PICO W Oil level sensor) |
| Message-ID | <lo301mxta2.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #78906 |
On 2025-12-12 12:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 11/12/2025 20:59, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-12-11 19:28, John R Walliker wrote: >>> On 11/12/2025 18:16, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>>> On 2025-12-11, Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 11/12/2025 04:12, c186282 wrote: >>>>>> ... they just run lots of pipes on the outsides of the thick stone >>>>>> walls. Works, but you'd never get away with that in modern >>>>>> commercial buildings. Things have to look all neat and tidy. >>>>> >>>>> Have you SEEN the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris? >>>>> >>>>> ... or the Lloyds Insurance building in London, for that matter. >>>> >>>> I seem to remember hearing that there was an English building code that >>>> REQUIRED outside pipes for water (and sewage?) so that they could be >>>> easily thawed with a blowtorch when they froze in the winter? >>> >>> No, it was only done to save money. >> >> It seems amazing to me doing that in Britain, were pipes can freeze. >> Now I understand the description of an hotel (Devon) in a novel I'm >> reading (Ruth Rendell, The secret house of death). >> > > I think the issue is that pre war, many many houses had no water, no > inside toilet, no heating beyond a coal fire no electricity and so on. > > Hence they were upgraded to a water tank in the roof and some form of > sporadic mains water supply, fed via something coming out of the ground > and into the house. > Drainage was often external - room size was small and the pipes were > just routed outside for ease of installation. And indeed access for > clearing blockages. > > Retrofitting modern infrastructure to old houses is massively expensive. My city is ancient, three thousand years, but there is no river. Well water tends to be salty, from the sea; mixed often. I don't know how they survived. I think the water in sufficient quantities arrived in 1945, from a river 170 Km to the north. So before that year, houses here had no bathrooms, they were built since then as houses were provided with running water. Yet, I have not seen that network of pipes on the outside, except for rain water from the roof. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-11 22:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <u1pr0mx06p.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #78549 |
On 2025-12-09 11:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > 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. Two ideas. Some routers can steer the signal horizontally; the technology is called "MIMO" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIMO). You notice because the router has multiple antenas, maybe four. Then you can replace the antena on the router or the remote with a directional WiFi antena. Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi antenna". I made one and it actually works. But maybe they are sold, too. ... > And I knew all that trig would come in handy one day :-) You can calculate it numerically on a computer, by calculating the aproximate integral ;-) -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-12 10:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hgrgu$2r3rh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78835 |
On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-12-09 11:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> 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. > > Two ideas. > > Some routers can steer the signal horizontally; the technology is called > "MIMO" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIMO). You notice because the > router has multiple antenas, maybe four. > > Then you can replace the antena on the router or the remote with a > directional WiFi antena. Home made with a box of Pringles. just google > for "pringles wifi antenna". I made one and it actually works. But maybe > they are sold, too. > I sorta tried that without huge success, In fact I am getting up to 12dB variation in signal due to who knows what? The setup is all somewhat experimental. At least for now the software is more or less stable - I have a few hanging daemons if the link goes down mid message - but that is easily fixed . > ... > >> And I knew all that trig would come in handy one day :-) > > You can calculate it numerically on a computer, by calculating the > aproximate integral ;-) > Huh? it can be as exact as your measurements are. No 'approximations' here... diameter= tankDepth - offset; radius = diameter * 0.5; y = echoDepth - offset -radius; theta = asin( y / radius); x = radius * cos(theta); pie= radius * radius * theta; delta = x * y; area= (M_PI * radius *radius)/2 - (pie + delta); volume=(area/(M_PI * radius *radius ))*tankVolume; That is about ultimately three days of work. It is redundant but I think gcc can optimise out the intermediary variables that I used to make sure even I could understand it. What has been encouraging is the pinpoint accuracy of the measurements. Once in a stable environment the ultrasonics are very precise. something like a mm or two in a couple of metres. Probably more precise than the speed of sound in air of variable pressures would justify, or indeed the expansion of the oil in warmer temperatures. LOL. Maybe I have built the world's most complicated barometer. -- “it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism (or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans, about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a 'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,' a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian utopia of 1984.” Vaclav Klaus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-13 13:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6e401mxo86.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #78896 |
On 2025-12-12 11:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-12-09 11:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Two ideas. >> >> Some routers can steer the signal horizontally; the technology is >> called "MIMO" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIMO). You notice because >> the router has multiple antenas, maybe four. >> >> Then you can replace the antena on the router or the remote with a >> directional WiFi antena. Home made with a box of Pringles. just google >> for "pringles wifi antenna". I made one and it actually works. But >> maybe they are sold, too. >> > I sorta tried that without huge success, In fact I am getting up to 12dB > variation in signal due to who knows what? > > The setup is all somewhat experimental. At least for now the software > is more or less stable - I have a few hanging daemons if the link goes > down mid message - but that is easily fixed . > >> ... >> >>> And I knew all that trig would come in handy one day :-) >> >> You can calculate it numerically on a computer, by calculating the >> aproximate integral ;-) >> > Huh? it can be as exact as your measurements are. > No 'approximations' here... > > diameter= tankDepth - offset; > radius = diameter * 0.5; > y = echoDepth - offset -radius; > theta = asin( y / radius); > x = radius * cos(theta); > pie= radius * radius * theta; > delta = x * y; > area= (M_PI * radius *radius)/2 - (pie + delta); > volume=(area/(M_PI * radius *radius ))*tankVolume; > > That is about ultimately three days of work. It is redundant but I think > gcc can optimise out the intermediary variables that I used to make sure > even I could understand it. You can aproximate the chord with a rectangle. If you divide the chord in two, it is two rectangles. Up to a thousand rectangles, or a million. The numerical result is close to the real result with a math formula. Kind of Runge-Kutta. :-D Or ask ChatGPT for the formula. I sure don't remember it, I doubt I ever saw it. > > > > What has been encouraging is the pinpoint accuracy of the measurements. > Once in a stable environment the ultrasonics are very precise. something > like a mm or two in a couple of metres. Probably more precise than the > speed of sound in air of variable pressures would justify, or indeed the > expansion of the oil in warmer temperatures. > > LOL. > > Maybe I have built the world's most complicated barometer. > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web