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 | 19 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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-12 11:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hgu87$2r3rh$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78835 |
On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote: > > 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 What antenna on the router? It's just a wifi bridge with an internal something or other. https://www.netxl.com/wifi-access-points/mikrotik-routerboard-rb951ui-2nd-wifi-4-access-point/ Its actually very very cheap and has been 'good enough' > or the remote with a > directional WiFi antena. That gets complicated. I am trying easy shit first :-) P Pico W doesn't have an 'antenna' either. Just some PCB traces. >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. Everything is possible. I am lazy. I do what is necessary to achieve desired result and no more. For now I seem to have adequate connectivity. -- I would rather have questions that cannot be answered... ...than to have answers that cannot be questioned Richard Feynman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-13 13:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <bd401mxo86.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #78908 |
On 2025-12-12 12:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >> 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 > > What antenna on the router? > > It's just a wifi bridge with an internal something or other. Ah, pity. Many AP have external antenas that are screwed on a socket. > > https://www.netxl.com/wifi-access-points/mikrotik-routerboard- > rb951ui-2nd-wifi-4-access-point/ > > Its actually very very cheap and has been 'good enough' Barely :-) > > > > or the remote with a >> directional WiFi antena. > > That gets complicated. I am trying easy shit first :-) > > P Pico W doesn't have an 'antenna' either. Just some PCB traces. Yeah, well. > >> 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. > > Everything is possible. I am lazy. I do what is necessary to achieve > desired result and no more. > > For now I seem to have adequate connectivity. Of course, that is enough. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-14 19:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10hn2pa$rr83$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78994 |
On 13/12/2025 12:56, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-12-12 12:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> >>> Two ideas. >>> >>> Some routers can steer the signal horizontally; the technology is >>> called "MIMO" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIMO). You notice >>> because the router has multiple antenas, maybe four. >>> >>> Then you can replace the antena on the router >> >> What antenna on the router? >> >> It's just a wifi bridge with an internal something or other. > > Ah, pity. Many AP have external antenas that are screwed on a socket. > >> >> https://www.netxl.com/wifi-access-points/mikrotik-routerboard- >> rb951ui-2nd-wifi-4-access-point/ >> >> Its actually very very cheap and has been 'good enough' > > Barely :-) > >> >> >> > or the remote with a >>> directional WiFi antena. >> >> That gets complicated. I am trying easy shit first :-) >> >> P Pico W doesn't have an 'antenna' either. Just some PCB traces. > > Yeah, well. > Actually it is a slot antenna. There is a gap in the ground plane which is equivalent to a dipole. It works remarkably well for its size. John >> >>> Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi >>> antenna". I made one and it actually works. But maybe they are sold, >>> too. >> >> Everything is possible. I am lazy. I do what is necessary to achieve >> desired result and no more. >> >> For now I seem to have adequate connectivity. > > Of course, that is enough. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 07:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ig6ej$rlld$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #78835 |
On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote: > Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi antenna". Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too small in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz. Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws of physics! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 12:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10iglir$1086g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79767 |
On 24/12/2025 07:58, mm0fmf wrote: > On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi >> antenna". > > Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too small > in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz. > Assuming that is a relevant issue. Shouting down a pipe whose diameter is way less than the wavlength of voice frequencies, still works.... > Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws of > physics! :-) > ..especially for people who don't fully understand them... -- "It was a lot more fun being 20 in the 70's that it is being 70 in the 20's" Joew Walsh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 14:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10igrsj$vpf9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79779 |
On 24/12/2025 12:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 24/12/2025 07:58, mm0fmf wrote: >> On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi >>> antenna". >> >> Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too >> small in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz. >> > Assuming that is a relevant issue. > > Shouting down a pipe whose diameter is way less than the wavlength of > voice frequencies, still works.... > >> Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws of >> physics! :-) >> > > ..especially for people who don't fully understand them... Indeed. And I'm sure you are perfectly well aware of the difference between longitudinal sound waves propagating down a narrow pipe and transverse electromagnetic waves in a waveguide. If a Pringles can were highly conductive it would have a cutoff frequency of close to 2.4GHz so the attenuation would be very high. However, a very thin layer of aluminium on the inside of a cardboard tube will be so resistive that it will not make a lot of difference. For many purposes a well made half-wave dipole or quarter-wave monopole gives excellent results which are far better than anything that can be achieved with small pcb antennas. A quarter wave monopole made from relatively thick wire or rod can be an excellent match to 50 ohm coax so long as the ground plane is at least a few wavelengths across. A half-wave dipole combined with a coaxial balun can also be a very good match but has a slightly narrower bandwidth due to the frequency dependency of the coax balun. The choice of which one to use depends mostly on how the antenna is to be mounted. An almost omnidirectional antenna with very low losses can be more effective than a lossy directional one. John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 14:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10igt1h$1086g$21@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79796 |
On 24/12/2025 14:04, John R Walliker wrote: > On 24/12/2025 12:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 24/12/2025 07:58, mm0fmf wrote: >>> On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi >>>> antenna". >>> >>> Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too >>> small in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz. >>> >> Assuming that is a relevant issue. >> >> Shouting down a pipe whose diameter is way less than the wavlength of >> voice frequencies, still works.... >> >>> Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws of >>> physics! :-) >>> >> >> ..especially for people who don't fully understand them... > > Indeed. And I'm sure you are perfectly well aware of the difference > between longitudinal sound waves propagating down a narrow pipe and > transverse electromagnetic waves in a waveguide. An antenna is not a waveguide. > If a Pringles can were highly conductive it would have a cutoff > frequency of close to 2.4GHz so the attenuation would be very high. > However, a very thin layer of aluminium on the inside of a cardboard > tube will be so resistive that it will not make a lot of difference. A statement which clearly contradicts the well known skin effect of conductirs at high frequencies. > For many purposes a well made half-wave dipole or quarter-wave > monopole gives excellent results which are far better than anything > that can be achieved with small pcb antennas. > Sure. Most routers come with wavelength sized wobbly penises that give you a few dB. > A quarter wave monopole made from relatively thick wire or rod can > be an excellent match to 50 ohm coax so long as the ground plane > is at least a few wavelengths across. > > A half-wave dipole combined with a coaxial balun can also be a very > good match but has a slightly narrower bandwidth due to the > frequency dependency of the coax balun. The choice of which one to > use depends mostly on how the antenna is to be mounted. > > An almost omnidirectional antenna with very low losses can be > more effective than a lossy directional one. > > John > Nevertheless I have seem that sort of design work. I worked around radar antennae briefly in the 1960s. What I learned was that theory is too simplified to actually be able to design a real antenna: All our designs were field tested and adjusted. I am not advocating Pringle cans. I wouldnt use one myself. But I am not so quick to rubbish them as you are. RF propagation is tricky, and real world objects of no apparent value often have enormous effects. -- The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about. Anon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251224170018.8e9d5bbfa5dd03c5b719cba7@127.0.0.1> |
| In reply to | #79798 |
On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 14:23:45 +0000 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: [] > What I learned was that theory is too simplified to actually be able to > design a real antenna: All our designs were field tested and adjusted. > > I am not advocating Pringle cans. I wouldnt use one myself. But I am > not so quick to rubbish them as you are. > > RF propagation is tricky, and real world objects of no apparent value > often have enormous effects. > > Prsumably you're saying Mythbusters-style "not proven"? -- Bah, and indeed Humbug.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ihh62$1bidi$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79801 |
On 24/12/2025 17:00, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: > On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 14:23:45 +0000 > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > [] >> What I learned was that theory is too simplified to actually be able to >> design a real antenna: All our designs were field tested and adjusted. >> >> I am not advocating Pringle cans. I wouldnt use one myself. But I am >> not so quick to rubbish them as you are. >> >> RF propagation is tricky, and real world objects of no apparent value >> often have enormous effects. >> >> > Prsumably you're saying Mythbusters-style "not proven"? > > I am saying that a blanket denial 'because the theory says no' is not good enough for me, personally. To make a waveguide, which is analysable, is quite tricky. To throw something in place that 'does something' and clearly is *not* a waveguide, and is essentially unanalysable, is another matter. With Gigahertz, as with Heffalumps, you never know... > -- If I had all the money I've spent on drink... ..I'd spend it on drink. Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 23:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ihsal$1erih$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79806 |
On 24/12/2025 20:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > With Gigahertz, as with Heffalumps, you never know... Some of us do know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-25 03:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10iian3$1j3l0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79809 |
On 24/12/2025 23:17, mm0fmf wrote:
> On 24/12/2025 20:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> With Gigahertz, as with Heffalumps, you never know...
>
> Some of us do know.
Some of us have worked with RF.
--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
― Leo Tolstoy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-25 07:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mr47joFaaaqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #79820 |
On Thu, 25 Dec 2025 03:23:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 24/12/2025 23:17, mm0fmf wrote: >> On 24/12/2025 20:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>> With Gigahertz, as with Heffalumps, you never know... >> >> Some of us do know. > > Some of us have worked with RF. That was my first real job -- 15 kw of it at around 100 MHz. Why is that fluorescent tube lighting with nothing attached to it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 21:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <xNqdnbgfN-X-A9H0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #79806 |
On 12/24/25 15:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 24/12/2025 17:00, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 14:23:45 +0000 >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >> [] >>> What I learned was that theory is too simplified to actually be able to >>> design a real antenna: All our designs were field tested and adjusted. >>> >>> I am not advocating Pringle cans. I wouldnt use one myself. But I am >>> not so quick to rubbish them as you are. >>> >>> RF propagation is tricky, and real world objects of no apparent value >>> often have enormous effects. >>> >>> >> Prsumably you're saying Mythbusters-style "not proven"? >> >> > I am saying that a blanket denial 'because the theory says no' is not > good enough for me, personally. > > To make a waveguide, which is analysable, is quite tricky. To throw > something in place that 'does something' and clearly is *not* a > waveguide, and is essentially unanalysable, is another matter. > > With Gigahertz, as with Heffalumps, you never know... Yep, once you get into gHz things get really weird. "Solutions" here can work for NO GOOD REASON, pure chance, funky reflections. Moved a unit literally four inches the other day and the data rate went up nearly 5X. Yes, a cheapo foil-lined tube CAN be a a waveguide, but the math has to work out. Me, I can't use waveguides because I need an OMNI signal the way things are spaced out in my home. I use one, sometimes two, wifi repeaters instead. Fairly cheap, work well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-27 21:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cgt52mx12u.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #79798 |
On 2025-12-24 15:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 24/12/2025 14:04, John R Walliker wrote: >> On 24/12/2025 12:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 24/12/2025 07:58, mm0fmf wrote: >>>> On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi >>>>> antenna". >>>> >>>> Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too >>>> small in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz. >>>> >>> Assuming that is a relevant issue. >>> >>> Shouting down a pipe whose diameter is way less than the wavlength of >>> voice frequencies, still works.... >>> >>>> Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws of >>>> physics! :-) >>>> >>> >>> ..especially for people who don't fully understand them... >> >> Indeed. And I'm sure you are perfectly well aware of the difference >> between longitudinal sound waves propagating down a narrow pipe and >> transverse electromagnetic waves in a waveguide. > > An antenna is not a waveguide. > > > >> If a Pringles can were highly conductive it would have a cutoff >> frequency of close to 2.4GHz so the attenuation would be very high. >> However, a very thin layer of aluminium on the inside of a cardboard >> tube will be so resistive that it will not make a lot of difference. > A statement which clearly contradicts the well known skin effect of > conductirs at high frequencies. > >> For many purposes a well made half-wave dipole or quarter-wave >> monopole gives excellent results which are far better than anything >> that can be achieved with small pcb antennas. >> > Sure. Most routers come with wavelength sized wobbly penises that give > you a few dB. > >> A quarter wave monopole made from relatively thick wire or rod can >> be an excellent match to 50 ohm coax so long as the ground plane >> is at least a few wavelengths across. >> >> A half-wave dipole combined with a coaxial balun can also be a very >> good match but has a slightly narrower bandwidth due to the >> frequency dependency of the coax balun. The choice of which one to >> use depends mostly on how the antenna is to be mounted. >> >> An almost omnidirectional antenna with very low losses can be >> more effective than a lossy directional one. >> > >> John >> > > Nevertheless I have seem that sort of design work. > I worked around radar antennae briefly in the 1960s. > > What I learned was that theory is too simplified to actually be able to > design a real antenna: All our designs were field tested and adjusted. > > I am not advocating Pringle cans. I wouldnt use one myself. But I am > not so quick to rubbish them as you are. > > RF propagation is tricky, and real world objects of no apparent value > often have enormous effects. I just say that once I built a Pringles antenna at a training course, and it does work. Inside the tube there is a threaded metal rod with a number of nuts and washers that had to be put at precise distances according to the instructions we followed. Black magic. We did not have any tool to measure gain, but indeed the router read a higher signal that with its manufacturer antena. And it was directional. I can not give any number because I don't remember where my notes are. Back to the original subject of the thread and to topic; Some of the designs out there just put an USB dongle inside the tube, and they work, somehow. No need to actually have a wifi card with socket for the antenna. If the Pi is small enough (I have no idea) there will be designs out there using it. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-27 23:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ipq94$3s7ln$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #79923 |
On 27/12/2025 20:51, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-12-24 15:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 24/12/2025 14:04, John R Walliker wrote: >>> On 24/12/2025 12:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 24/12/2025 07:58, mm0fmf wrote: >>>>> On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi >>>>>> antenna". >>>>> >>>>> Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too >>>>> small in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz. >>>>> >>>> Assuming that is a relevant issue. >>>> >>>> Shouting down a pipe whose diameter is way less than the wavlength >>>> of voice frequencies, still works.... >>>> >>>>> Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws >>>>> of physics! :-) >>>>> >>>> >>>> ..especially for people who don't fully understand them... >>> >>> Indeed. And I'm sure you are perfectly well aware of the difference >>> between longitudinal sound waves propagating down a narrow pipe and >>> transverse electromagnetic waves in a waveguide. >> >> An antenna is not a waveguide. >> >> >> >>> If a Pringles can were highly conductive it would have a cutoff >>> frequency of close to 2.4GHz so the attenuation would be very high. >>> However, a very thin layer of aluminium on the inside of a cardboard >>> tube will be so resistive that it will not make a lot of difference. >> A statement which clearly contradicts the well known skin effect of >> conductirs at high frequencies. >> >>> For many purposes a well made half-wave dipole or quarter-wave >>> monopole gives excellent results which are far better than anything >>> that can be achieved with small pcb antennas. >>> >> Sure. Most routers come with wavelength sized wobbly penises that give >> you a few dB. >> >>> A quarter wave monopole made from relatively thick wire or rod can >>> be an excellent match to 50 ohm coax so long as the ground plane >>> is at least a few wavelengths across. >>> >>> A half-wave dipole combined with a coaxial balun can also be a very >>> good match but has a slightly narrower bandwidth due to the >>> frequency dependency of the coax balun. The choice of which one to >>> use depends mostly on how the antenna is to be mounted. >>> >>> An almost omnidirectional antenna with very low losses can be >>> more effective than a lossy directional one. >>> >> >>> John >>> >> >> Nevertheless I have seem that sort of design work. >> I worked around radar antennae briefly in the 1960s. >> >> What I learned was that theory is too simplified to actually be able >> to design a real antenna: All our designs were field tested and adjusted. >> >> I am not advocating Pringle cans. I wouldnt use one myself. But I am >> not so quick to rubbish them as you are. >> >> RF propagation is tricky, and real world objects of no apparent value >> often have enormous effects. > > I just say that once I built a Pringles antenna at a training course, > and it does work. Inside the tube there is a threaded metal rod with a > number of nuts and washers that had to be put at precise distances > according to the instructions we followed. > > Black magic. > Sounds like a primitive Yagi... > We did not have any tool to measure gain, but indeed the router read a > higher signal that with its manufacturer antena. And it was directional. > I can not give any number because I don't remember where my notes are. > Always hard to tell anyway. > > Back to the original subject of the thread and to topic; Some of the > designs out there just put an USB dongle inside the tube, and they work, > somehow. No need to actually have a wifi card with socket for the > antenna. If the Pi is small enough (I have no idea) there will be > designs out there using it. > As I said, I took the shortest route to success - relocated the wifi point to higher up with less obstructions, and added a suicide alarm to kill the receiving process if the signal fails mid message... I will have to add another wifi point to replace the one I stole, for next summer when that part of the garden is in use :-) -- "Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) " Alan Sokal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-27 23:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mrba5mFeoclU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #79937 |
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 23:31:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Sounds like a primitive Yagi... I build a 2m quagi at one point, speaking of primitive. http://www.overbeck.com/quagi.htm It didn't look like much but I could hit a repeater 160 miles away with a 5w Radio Shack handi-talki. There's an advantage to having a 7800' mountain to put you're repeater on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 23:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn10kos6a.56q4.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> |
| In reply to | #79796 |
[See also my previous followup - also shifting to alt. On 2025-12-24, John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24/12/2025 12:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 24/12/2025 07:58, mm0fmf wrote: >>> On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi >>>> antenna". >>> >>> Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too >>> small in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz. >>> >> Assuming that is a relevant issue. >> >> Shouting down a pipe whose diameter is way less than the wavlength of >> voice frequencies, still works.... >> >>> Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws of >>> physics! :-) >>> >> >> ..especially for people who don't fully understand them... > > Indeed. And I'm sure you are perfectly well aware of the difference > between longitudinal sound waves propagating down a narrow pipe and > transverse electromagnetic waves in a waveguide. > If a Pringles can were highly conductive it would have a cutoff > frequency of close to 2.4GHz so the attenuation would be very high. > However, a very thin layer of aluminium on the inside of a cardboard > tube will be so resistive that it will not make a lot of difference. > For many purposes a well made half-wave dipole or quarter-wave > monopole gives excellent results which are far better than anything > that can be achieved with small pcb antennas. > > A quarter wave monopole made from relatively thick wire or rod can > be an excellent match to 50 ohm coax so long as the ground plane > is at least a few wavelengths across. > > A half-wave dipole combined with a coaxial balun can also be a very > good match but has a slightly narrower bandwidth due to the > frequency dependency of the coax balun. The choice of which one to > use depends mostly on how the antenna is to be mounted. > > An almost omnidirectional antenna with very low losses can be > more effective than a lossy directional one. > > John > -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-25 02:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mr3lsdF6vguU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #79779 |
On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 12:16:27 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 24/12/2025 07:58, mm0fmf wrote: >> On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi >>> antenna". >> >> Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too small >> in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz. >> > Assuming that is a relevant issue. > > Shouting down a pipe whose diameter is way less than the wavlength of > voice frequencies, still works.... True, but the benefits of impedance matching with a megaphone were discovered long ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-24 22:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn10korn1.56q4.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> |
| In reply to | #79767 |
[Folloup-to alt.unix.geeks] > On 11/12/2025 21:18, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> Home made with a box of Pringles. just google for "pringles wifi antenna". On 2025-12-24, mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote: > Also Google cutoff frequency and see that the Pringle tube is too small > in diameter to be effective at 2.4GHz. > > Of course, designs on the internet do not have to follow the laws of > physics! :-) As a wireless applications engineer, I have always shaken my head at the pringles can antenna, which if well made can have a gain up to at most 8 dBi or so. For less than $50, you can buy a professinally made flat patch antenna with 8 dBi gain at L-com.com. Apparently, you can find used ones on eBay for under $30, but why take the risk? If you need circular polarization, it will be closer to $75. -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web