Sorry for the late reply, I was out on fields. In the mean time I opened up the XO but couldn't find any thing wrong with it. I've uploaded the pictures here, https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0BwLO_x-v4VE4eXpuOTFyVlZsQ3M/edit . Can you please kindly check once and see if you can spot any fault or some other part that I missed to look. However I also compared by opening another working xo but didn't find any differences.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:25 AM, James Cameron <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 11:04:07AM +0545, Roshan Karki wrote: > > I'm sorry I never noticed the period. Actually I was typing one > > command per line and thought . was for period. With dot I'm getting > > 0 as result. > > Sorry about that. The Forth word . pops an item from the stack and > prints it as a number in the current radix. > > Okay, this means that during 300ms of listening on the specified > channel, the wireless device was unable to receive any of the > multicast packets from the sender. > > The transmit power used by the NANDblaster sender is likely to be much > lower than the transmit power used by your access point. The result > of the RF link budget [1] may not allow successful receive. > > > You are right. There is around -20 difference between working and > > this xo. > > Try placing this XO with the antennas 25cm from the sender, with the > antennas of both XO set vertical. > > I'm now convinced you have an antenna cable problem that needs > maintenance. There is likely to be about 20 dB extra loss in the > cables, compared to the working XO. > > As an optimisation, you can also use test-antenna to find which XO has > the best RSSI, and use that XO as the NANDblaster sender. A high RSSI > also means the XO will transmit better, in most cases. > > References: > > 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_budget > > -- > James Cameron > http://quozl.linux.org.au/ >
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
