On 9 December 2014 at 13:32, Richard Halfpenny < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/12/2014 11:37, Peter Knapp wrote: > > I spent quite a while on this with a couple of larger multi-vendor WAP > > distributors and they have clients of the big exhibition centres and > > music venues, and they use extremely steerable APs with shielding, much > > as you do with an audio line array if you are familiar, and don’t have > > anywhere near the number of users per AP you are citing. > > +1, the antenna/RF design will make or break this kind of solution. > as an RF guy, I approve this message. In fact, you might be forced to use "bad antennaes" like leaky feeders placed in metal troughs or spaced above them as corner reflectors under a raised floor to get stuff to work best, to limit the numbers of devices per physical radio. I've had to pick up the total mess of this on several SCADA-type fitments. It can only be worse for one-off events where failure is not an option. I had to borrow over 300 humans to move around carrying sensors to prove one fitment didn't work the way the vendor said it did. Fine when you have minimum wage people that are bored. Some of the bods I had to borrow were on 150k+ a year and very pissed off to be in a cold icy refinery - one of my worst ever site visits; so, so glad I'm retired from site ops like that now. . Beamsteering, $latest-craze and "software solutions" are unhelpful above a certain empirical threshold. You simply cannot break the laws of physics by even a tiny fraction of a percent. If you do exceed the *known* laws, please document it, make it repeatable and become rich and famous. Otherwise, you've been conned :) -- sent via Gmail web interface, so please excuse my gross neglect of Netiquette
