Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #89899 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-14 23:33 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-18 02:48 +0000 |
| Articles | 4 on this page of 24 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-14 23:33 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-14 21:35 -0400
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-15 07:13 -0700
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-16 02:14 -0400
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-17 19:26 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-17 20:58 +0100
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-17 20:47 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-18 00:47 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-17 22:31 -0400
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-18 13:36 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-18 17:18 +0100
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-18 22:00 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 14:33 +0100
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 22:45 -0400
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-19 03:17 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-19 01:57 -0400
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 06:20 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-19 02:51 -0400
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 03:58 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-19 02:20 -0400
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 14:19 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 14:36 +0100
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 03:47 +0000
Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-18 02:48 +0000
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 14:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nelsauFpub2U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90105 |
On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 02:20:01 -0400, c186282 wrote: > I think I had an Accurite. Never tried to decode its signals on a PC > however - never had a receiver to fit a PC. Anyway, for low speed > 'field data' even the 400mhz zone is quite adequate and tends to get > around obstacles pretty well. amazon.com/RTL-SDR-Blog-RTL2832U-Software-Defined/dp/B0BMKZCKTF It does a lot more than pick up the Accurite signal. https://github.com/merbanan/rtl_433 It also can handle ADS-B, FM stations, etc, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 14:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1164bha$2le0s$13@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90087 |
On 19/08/2026 03:45, c186282 wrote: > On 8/18/26 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote: >>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>>> On 8/17/26 20:47, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>> On 2026-08-17, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2.4Ghz will happily do a miles as many RC modelers have found. >>>>>>> Just not >>>>>>> with trees in the way. >>>>>> >>>>>> Living trees are quite full of lots of water, which is a very good >>>>>> 2.4G signal absorbing medium. >>>>> >>>>> Good point. There's a reason microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz. >>>> >>>> Alas 5ghz interacts poorly with STRUCTURES. >>> >>> 5Ghz is much more easily absorbed by structures. Brick and concrete >>> are very good absorbers of 5Ghz signals. Brick and concrete also >>> absorb 2.4Ghz signals as well, just not to the attenuation level that >>> 5Ghz is absorbed. >>> >>>> I doubt there's a 'perfect frequency' that will >>>> get thru structures, veggies AND offer a good >>>> data rate. >>> >>> There is no "perfect frequency". Ignoring FCC rules that mean you >>> can't use every frequency anyway, if you want more penetration (less >>> attenuation) from structures you want lower frequency. But lower >>> frequency comes along with lower bandwidth for data, so lower data >>> speeds. >>> >> Its ironic that I could probably build a reliable data transfer for 50 >> baud running on 27MHz > > Quite true - 'reliable', just not FAST. > No, 50 baud is not fast. But when the data is only 50 bytes to so every other hour it is more than enough >> The best way is to wire the house with CAT 5 > > CAT 6+ these days !!! > Well yes if you want 10 gigabits and a range less than a room width No. Cat 5e is better for whole house coverage and 1Gbbps > -- 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 | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 03:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neknb6Fe0jfU11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90069 |
On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 17:18:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Its ironic that I could probably build a reliable data transfer for 50 > baud running on 27MHz I never did anything with the HF digital modes but I did play around with 2M packet radio at a blazing 1200 baud. Some areas did have 9600 baud but there wasn't that much interest in the local club. To be more precise, when the topic of packet came up there was a groan from most of the members. This was before cheap cellphones so they were mostly using 2M handi-talkies as cheap phones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-18 02:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nehvfaFpk4lU40@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90007 |
On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 00:47:08 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-08-17, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> 2.4Ghz will happily do a miles as many RC modelers have found. Just >>> not with trees in the way. >> >> Living trees are quite full of lots of water, which is a very good 2.4G >> signal absorbing medium. > > Good point. There's a reason microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz. More than one. If you only wanted to heat water the optimal frequency would be quite a bit higher. However that would increase the problem of the center of the mass not being heated very well. The dielectric heaters I worked with were around 100 MHz and used the near field effect. The material was placed inside the two plates of a capacitor. It heats the material more uniformly but isn't practical for a counter top unit. I worked in that field before consumer microwaves were widely used but it didn't take long for the factory workers to discover that what could heat a phenolic preform worked well with pizza. We had one of the smaller units in engineering that was great for reviving day old pastries from the bakery down the street.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web