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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #89899 > unrolled thread

The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture

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

Contents

  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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#89899 — The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture

<https://www.xda-developers.com/the-best-wi-fi-upgrade-wasnt-a-new-router-it-was-moving-some-furniture/>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#89901

On 8/14/26 19:33, rbowman wrote:
> <https://www.xda-developers.com/the-best-wi-fi-upgrade-wasnt-a-new-router-it-was-moving-some-furniture/>

   Heh heh ... YEP !

   Esp with 5ghz.

   Had a little remote unit, crappy crappy connection.
   Literally moved it six inches and suddenly a pretty
   damned GOOD connection. Not sure WHAT in the path
   was blocking the wifi, but even that tiny move got
   the obstruction out of the path.

   The higher the freq, the more it acts like ordinary
   light, and less like 'radio'.

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

#89910

On 2026-08-14 18:35, c186282 wrote:
> On 8/14/26 19:33, rbowman wrote:
>> <https://www.xda-developers.com/the-best-wi-fi-upgrade-wasnt-a-new- 
>> router-it-was-moving-some-furniture/>
> 
>    Heh heh ... YEP !
> 
>    Esp with 5ghz.
> 
>    Had a little remote unit, crappy crappy connection.
>    Literally moved it six inches and suddenly a pretty
>    damned GOOD connection. Not sure WHAT in the path
>    was blocking the wifi, but even that tiny move got
>    the obstruction out of the path.

Classic multipath interference. Signals arriving by different paths 
(some of which may involve reflections) arrive with different phase and 
may cancel each other out.

>    The higher the freq, the more it acts like ordinary
>    light, and less like 'radio'.

Yes, for sure!

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

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

#89924

On 8/15/26 10:13, Lars Poulsen wrote:
> On 2026-08-14 18:35, c186282 wrote:
>> On 8/14/26 19:33, rbowman wrote:
>>> <https://www.xda-developers.com/the-best-wi-fi-upgrade-wasnt-a-new- 
>>> router-it-was-moving-some-furniture/>
>>
>>    Heh heh ... YEP !
>>
>>    Esp with 5ghz.
>>
>>    Had a little remote unit, crappy crappy connection.
>>    Literally moved it six inches and suddenly a pretty
>>    damned GOOD connection. Not sure WHAT in the path
>>    was blocking the wifi, but even that tiny move got
>>    the obstruction out of the path.
> 
> Classic multipath interference. Signals arriving by different paths 
> (some of which may involve reflections) arrive with different phase and 
> may cancel each other out.

   Yep.

   And the higher the freq, the worse !

>>    The higher the freq, the more it acts like ordinary
>>    light, and less like 'radio'.
> 
> Yes, for sure!

   I have seven IP cams looking out around. Set
   them ALL to 2.4ghz because that's less vulnerable
   to "shadow" effects. Only run 1-hz reads, so
   speed is much less important than solid connections.

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

#89984

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> On 8/15/26 10:13, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>> On 2026-08-14 18:35, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 8/14/26 19:33, rbowman wrote:
>>>> <https://www.xda-developers.com/the-best-wi-fi-upgrade-wasnt-a-new- 
>>>> router-it-was-moving-some-furniture/>
>>>
>>>    Heh heh ... YEP !
>>>
>>>    Esp with 5ghz.
>>>
>>>    Had a little remote unit, crappy crappy connection.     
>>> Literally moved it six inches and suddenly a pretty damned GOOD 
>>> connection.  Not sure WHAT in the path was blocking the wifi, but 
>>> even that tiny move got the obstruction out of the path.
>> 
>> Classic multipath interference.  Signals arriving by different paths 
>> (some of which may involve reflections) arrive with different phase 
>> and may cancel each other out.
> 
>   Yep.
> 
>   And the higher the freq, the worse !

Higher frequency matters not for multi-path interference, destructive 
interference is still destructive interference.  What is worse for 
higher frequency is propagation losses (the signal is weaker at the 
same distance from the antenna for an identical transmit power).

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

#89988

On 17/08/2026 20:26, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 8/15/26 10:13, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>> On 2026-08-14 18:35, c186282 wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/26 19:33, rbowman wrote:
>>>>> <https://www.xda-developers.com/the-best-wi-fi-upgrade-wasnt-a-new-
>>>>> router-it-was-moving-some-furniture/>
>>>>
>>>>     Heh heh ... YEP !
>>>>
>>>>     Esp with 5ghz.
>>>>
>>>>     Had a little remote unit, crappy crappy connection.
>>>> Literally moved it six inches and suddenly a pretty damned GOOD
>>>> connection.  Not sure WHAT in the path was blocking the wifi, but
>>>> even that tiny move got the obstruction out of the path.
>>>
>>> Classic multipath interference.  Signals arriving by different paths
>>> (some of which may involve reflections) arrive with different phase
>>> and may cancel each other out.
>>
>>    Yep.
>>
>>    And the higher the freq, the worse !
> 
> Higher frequency matters not for multi-path interference, destructive
> interference is still destructive interference.  What is worse for
> higher frequency is propagation losses (the signal is weaker at the
> same distance from the antenna for an identical transmit power).
> 
Well not really, Go far enough and you run into light and that seems to 
work OK at a billion lightyears plus.

It all depends on what you are travelling through.  50 miles is an 
effective range of a 35GHz microwave link before the earth's curvature 
renders that a bit impractical

2.4Ghz will happily do a miles as many RC modelers have found. Just not 
with trees in the way.

There is an argument that scattering and destructive interference is 
precisely how propagation losses happen anyway...

-- 
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is 
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

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

#89993

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 17/08/2026 20:26, Rich wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/15/26 10:13, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>>>> On 2026-08-14 18:35, c186282 wrote:
>>>>> On 8/14/26 19:33, rbowman wrote:
>>>>>> <https://www.xda-developers.com/the-best-wi-fi-upgrade-wasnt-a-new-
>>>>>> router-it-was-moving-some-furniture/>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Heh heh ... YEP !
>>>>>
>>>>>     Esp with 5ghz.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Had a little remote unit, crappy crappy connection.
>>>>> Literally moved it six inches and suddenly a pretty damned GOOD
>>>>> connection.  Not sure WHAT in the path was blocking the wifi, but
>>>>> even that tiny move got the obstruction out of the path.
>>>>
>>>> Classic multipath interference.  Signals arriving by different paths
>>>> (some of which may involve reflections) arrive with different phase
>>>> and may cancel each other out.
>>>
>>>    Yep.
>>>
>>>    And the higher the freq, the worse !
>> 
>> Higher frequency matters not for multi-path interference, destructive
>> interference is still destructive interference.  What is worse for
>> higher frequency is propagation losses (the signal is weaker at the
>> same distance from the antenna for an identical transmit power).
>> 
> Well not really, Go far enough and you run into light and that seems to 
> work OK at a billion lightyears plus.

While true, I was leaving things like that out, our "speed of light" 
nym seems to get confused too easily otherwise.

> It all depends on what you are travelling through.  50 miles is an 
> effective range of a 35GHz microwave link before the earth's curvature 
> renders that a bit impractical

Speed of light nym was talking about WiFi links, so given current, 
affordable, home tech, that's 2.4G and 5G WiFi links.  And presuming 
the 2.4G and 5G signals begin at the same access point (a normal 
assumption for a typical install) then at the same distance away 
(assuming a reasonable WiFi type distance), in general, the 5G signal 
will be more attenuated than the 2.4G signal.

> 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.

> There is an argument that scattering and destructive interference is 
> precisely how propagation losses happen anyway...

In general it is, which is why "light, in space" can propagate such 
distances.  There is little matter in the way to produce that 
scattering.  And what matter there is is very dispersed, so it reduces 
the scattering.

For "speed of light nym's WiFi signals" and presuming a fixed AP and a 
fixed laptop/phone there is plenty of matter in between for scattering 
(or outright absorption).

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

#90007

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.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

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

#90013

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.

   Mostly we use wi-fi INDOORS, so ...

   I doubt there's a 'perfect frequency' that will
   get thru structures, veggies AND offer a good
   data rate. Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple
   repeaters in house and then pick the BEST one
   to connect to in any given part of the structure.

   Fortunately repeaters are NOT very expensive.

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

#90061

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.

Reality is you have tradeoffs, and have to decide which tradeoff is 
acceptable to you.

>   Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then 
>   pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the structure.

Yes, that is the best way, but also the more complicated way, so most 
non-techie folks won't end up going that route.

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

#90069

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


> Reality is you have tradeoffs, and have to decide which tradeoff is
> acceptable to you.
> 
>>    Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then
>>    pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the structure.
> 
> Yes, that is the best way, but also the more complicated way, so most
> non-techie folks won't end up going that route.
> 
The best way is to wire the house with CAT 5
-- 
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, 
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

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

#90078

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>    Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then
>>>    pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the structure.
>> 
>> Yes, that is the best way, but also the more complicated way, so most
>> non-techie folks won't end up going that route.
>> 
> The best way is to wire the house with CAT 5

Indeed, yes.  That avoids all issues with WiFi, at least for those 
devices that can be connected to a CAT5 wire.

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

#90130

On 18/08/2026 23:00, Rich wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>>     Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then
>>>>     pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the structure.
>>>
>>> Yes, that is the best way, but also the more complicated way, so most
>>> non-techie folks won't end up going that route.
>>>
>> The best way is to wire the house with CAT 5
> 
> Indeed, yes.  That avoids all issues with WiFi, at least for those
> devices that can be connected to a CAT5 wire.
> 
Even if they cant, my decision to put CAT 5 everywhere - originally for 
phone but now for Ethernet, means that I can drop a WAP in anywhere in 
the house that needs it


-- 
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the 
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

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

#90087

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.

   As for the 'FCC' ... sorry, no Ministry Of Housinz
   detector vans running around. They can't afford it
   and the VAST proliferation of signals makes a mess
   even an AI couldn't sort out. Unless you're blasting
   half a megawatt over commercial/govt stations the
   FCC just doesn't *care* anymore.

>> Reality is you have tradeoffs, and have to decide which tradeoff is
>> acceptable to you.
>>
>>>    Best, shitty, fix is to have multiple repeaters in house and then
>>>    pick the BEST one to connect to in any given part of the structure.
>>
>> Yes, that is the best way, but also the more complicated way, so most
>> non-techie folks won't end up going that route.
>>
> The best way is to wire the house with CAT 5

   CAT 6+ these days !!!

   Of course not all houses are 'wiring friendly', mine
   is NOT. Also, not EVERYTHING is directly indoors, I
   have some security cams on outbuildings.

   Anyway, the fairly cheap solution is repeaters/range-boosters
   They can get signals "around corners" pretty well.

   The 400mhz and 900mhz data bands were pretty good,
   and a number of devices are still made for them.
   They'd get through walls and trees and tropical
   rainstorms - often a mile+ range. Still, alas,
   yer data SPEED isn't gonna be like modern wi-fi.
   They're more like 'radio-linked modems'.

   https://www.adafruit.com/product/4072

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

#90090

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> On 8/18/26 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
>   As for the 'FCC' ...  sorry, no Ministry Of Housinz detector vans 
>   running around.  They can't afford it and the VAST proliferation of 
>   signals makes a mess even an AI couldn't sort out.  Unless you're 
>   blasting half a megawatt over commercial/govt stations the FCC just 
>   doesn't *care* anymore.

That very much depends on what, or who, you happen to be stepping upon.

Stomp over the frequencies your local police/fire/rescue departments 
are using and you may get the Ministry Of Housinz detector vans roaming 
your area.

Stomp over the frequencies used by a nearby airport for aircraft to 
tower comms and you *will* get the Ministry Of Housinz detector vans 
roaming around hunting you down.

Stomp over Verizon's cell phone tower signals, well, maybe the vans 
show up, maybe not.

Stomp all over your neighborhood 2.4Ghz WiFi free-for-all bands, yeah, 
nobody at the FCC will care one bit.

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

#90103

On 8/18/26 23:17, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 8/18/26 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 18/08/2026 14:36, Rich wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>>    As for the 'FCC' ...  sorry, no Ministry Of Housinz detector vans
>>    running around.  They can't afford it and the VAST proliferation of
>>    signals makes a mess even an AI couldn't sort out.  Unless you're
>>    blasting half a megawatt over commercial/govt stations the FCC just
>>    doesn't *care* anymore.
> 
> That very much depends on what, or who, you happen to be stepping upon.

   As I said.

   Big-money commercial and/or 'security'-related
   govt freqs ... MIGHT be worth their time, maybe.

   The FCC seems more concerned with mass data feeds,
   sats, microwave towers. Oh, and of course, trying
   to keep Junior from seeking nekked titties.

   Anyway, if you start walking over StarLink then
   they WILL put in the time. Make a high-power
   ULF/ELF transmitter (difficult) and they'll get
   yer ass too.

> Stomp over the frequencies your local police/fire/rescue departments
> are using and you may get the Ministry Of Housinz detector vans roaming
> your area.

   MAYBE.

> Stomp over the frequencies used by a nearby airport for aircraft to
> tower comms and you *will* get the Ministry Of Housinz detector vans
> roaming around hunting you down.

   MUCH MORE MAYBE if it's aircraft/mil freqs.

> Stomp over Verizon's cell phone tower signals, well, maybe the vans
> show up, maybe not.

   Lots of money and campaign donations there, eventually
   they'll look into it. The freq-hopping aspect trick on
   newer devices tends to reject random signals though.
   Thank you Hedy Lamarr.

> Stomp all over your neighborhood 2.4Ghz WiFi free-for-all bands, yeah,
> nobody at the FCC will care one bit.

   Exactly. THAT kind of shit is beneath notice
   these days.

   Saw an article a few years back where they put
   a REAL antenna on a Pi-3. Range went up at least
   twenty times, they had stats ... miles and miles
   and miles.

   No vans showed up.

   Anyway, when "CB" became popular, the sheer VOLUME
   of transmitters became TOO much to cope with. It
   has exceed that by two or three orders of magnitude
   at this point.

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

#90106

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 01:57:16 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Anyway, if you start walking over StarLink then they WILL put in the
>    time. Make a high-power ULF/ELF transmitter (difficult) and they'll
>    get yer ass too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLF_Transmitter_Cutler

Sort of hard to hide in the backyard. I can't find a link but I believe 
they use diesel generators to power it. There's a low rumble as you sail 
by 3 miles offshore. It's not a secret site and is a landmark on the 
navigational charts.

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

#90112

On 8/19/26 02:20, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 01:57:16 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     Anyway, if you start walking over StarLink then they WILL put in the
>>     time. Make a high-power ULF/ELF transmitter (difficult) and they'll
>>     get yer ass too.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLF_Transmitter_Cutler
> 
> Sort of hard to hide in the backyard. I can't find a link but I believe
> they use diesel generators to power it. There's a low rumble as you sail
> by 3 miles offshore. It's not a secret site and is a landmark on the
> navigational charts.

   ULF/ELF - requires a huge amount of real-estate
   and major power. Wavelengths are in MILES. Still,
   the only good way to talk to subs, even if the
   data rate is just horrible.

   There's a place not THAT far away - in the 70s you
   could see into the property from the road, then
   they put up a berm. Then they doctored the aerial
   photos you can get off the net :-)

   Not sure WHY ... Vlad and Xi have their own
   sats and can obviously see. Oh well, the USG
   denied "Area-51" existed for many decades
   even though everyone knew better.

   Hmmm ... a TV show I saw the other day. When
   Russian sats were coming over they'd drag
   the SR-71s into a hanger. However the Russians
   STILL got the general profile - the IR heat
   shadow left on the tarmac  :-)

   Guess they have to TRY and hide shit, but that's
   clearly becoming MUCH more difficult.

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

#90095

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:45:09 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    The 400mhz and 900mhz data bands were pretty good,
>    and a number of devices are still made for them. They'd get through
>    walls and trees and tropical rainstorms - often a mile+ range. Still,
>    alas, yer data SPEED isn't gonna be like modern wi-fi. They're more
>    like 'radio-linked modems'.

I don't know where they're located but I can pick up the outdoor 
temperature and humidity from a couple of devices on 433 MHz. The Accurite 
has both while the other one only has temp. It's a short packet every 15 
seconds so it's not pushing hard. 

They're not as popular as they were but I have some nfr24l01 boards that 
operate on 2.4GHz. Supposedly you can get 2 Mbps but the 250 Kbps is fine 
for me using the printed antenna rather than the external models.

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

#90105

On 8/18/26 23:58, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:45:09 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     The 400mhz and 900mhz data bands were pretty good,
>>     and a number of devices are still made for them. They'd get through
>>     walls and trees and tropical rainstorms - often a mile+ range. Still,
>>     alas, yer data SPEED isn't gonna be like modern wi-fi. They're more
>>     like 'radio-linked modems'.
> 
> I don't know where they're located but I can pick up the outdoor
> temperature and humidity from a couple of devices on 433 MHz. The Accurite
> has both while the other one only has temp. It's a short packet every 15
> seconds so it's not pushing hard.

   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.

> They're not as popular as they were but I have some nfr24l01 boards that
> operate on 2.4GHz. Supposedly you can get 2 Mbps but the 250 Kbps is fine
> for me using the printed antenna rather than the external models.

   Use 2.4 wifi for all my IP cams. More reliable
   but can STILL suffer from 'shadows'. 5ghz is
   much worse.

   As said, NOTHING is "perfect" for all uses.
   Still waiting for 'sub-space radio'  :-)

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web