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 | 7 on this page of 27 — 7 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
[OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-20 19:30 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: The best Wi-Fi upgrade I made wasn't a new router, it was moving one piece of furniture rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-20 19:35 +0000
Re: [OT] 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> - 2026-08-20 20:19 +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> - 2026-08-18 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 | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 02:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <KnydnRM2DeP2zxj3nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90106 |
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]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 03:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neknukFe0jfU12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90087 |
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]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 02:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <KnydnRE2DeOA1hj3nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90095 |
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]
| 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