Re: Wireless Networking?
- From: Alan Adams <alan.adams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 13:26:18 +0100
In message <ant3106300b09GWx@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Michael Gilbert <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <10475f2f4e.jwcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Campbell Rees
<URL:mailto:jwcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
During the course of this discussion, Jess Hampshire
<phantasm_39@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
in message <32755a2f4e.jess@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <5bdc532f4e.jwcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you wrote:Actually measured the distance, 60 feet not 60 yards. So that is
My mother lives three doors away from me, less than 60 yards up the
street. She is soon to get a PC laptop and wants internet access.
roughly 18 metres.
Oooh NOOO a Mac at least.Beggars, chosers and gift horse's mouths, etc.
If you are lucky, it depends on the thickness of the walls,I get the feeling that this idea is not going to work. Our houses are
on the same side of a terrace built to last in 1919. The wall at th
front and back are solid Pennant Sandstone and 18 inches thick.
Dividing walls are also stone but only 6 inches thick.
Depends how wet the stone is. Sandstone shouldn't be too bad, though.
Granite is a no-no, due to density. The nominal transmission distance
of a basic wireless setup is about 50-100m indoors. What's more likely
to cause disruption to the signal is all the other stuff in front of
the walls, like TVs, fridges and mirrors. If your terrace is 1919, then
doorways are liable to be in line, which would help.
To be honest, and without trying to be too patronising, the best
solution for Internet access I can see for the genus Mother is the
TalkTalk broadband/phone thing. Wife and her mum are all on the normal
TalkTalk phone thing, which saves large amounts off the bill as it was.
The level of use that my in-laws are liable to make of the 'net makes
adding the broadband element logical for them. And probably cheaper in
time and hassle than the original idea posted.
To clear up something which was briefly mentioned: "Line of sight" in
wireless terms doesn't mean "Oh look, there it is!" Wireless isn't
light, and a small bush will disrupt the signal more than a brick wall.
Open water and fish tanks are a bit of a bummer, too, for different
reasons.
Cheers
Mike
It's sometimes surprising which materials are bad. Northamptonshire
ironstone, for example, is almost totally opaque to wireless. More
surprising is both modern office windows, and 16th century leaded
lights. The 16th century glass is high in lead, as well as having the
glass connected by lead glazing bars, while K-glass apparently has a
metal film to reflect heat. It also reflects radio waves.
Breeze block should be OK, brick, in single layers isn't too bad,
while stud partition is good, provided it doesn't include foil-lined
plasterboard.
The outdoor range is badly affected by rain.
Generally I would not expect this to work using standard indoor
equipment. The 50m range usually quoted is clear air, line of sight.
10 metres can be too far through buildings.
Is the roof space of this terrace separated, or is it open right
through? Transmitting through that could work.
--
Alan Adams, from Northamptonshire
alan.adams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.nckc.org.uk/
.
- References:
- Wireless Networking?
- From: John Campbell Rees
- Re: Wireless Networking?
- From: Jess Hampshire
- Re: Wireless Networking?
- From: John Campbell Rees
- Re: Wireless Networking?
- From: Michael Gilbert
- Wireless Networking?
- Prev by Date: Re: Wireless Networking?
- Next by Date: Re: Wireless Networking?
- Previous by thread: Re: Wireless Networking?
- Next by thread: Re: Wireless Networking?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
