Haven't used ROR's, what I've used were a few Aironet BR500's. Were you ROR's at sea level ? What kind of sustained throughput did you get ? I would think if they could raise the antenna so that less power was "absorbed" into the water, they could do this without any boost. Hell 4 miles is pretty close.
Regards Tom Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:50:58 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [BAWUG] Re: 2-4 miles over water? From: David G Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> well, we did a 12 mile link over saltwater about six months ago in san diego with 802.11b and a couple of RORs. You actually have less Fresnel interference over water due to the fact that 2.4Ghz is very well absorbed by the stuff. You will need line of sight at that distance, however, and I would recommend boosting the signal a bit and using a good set of antennae (24dbi parabolic grid). --dgc On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 08:02:26AM -0700, Tom Balon wrote: > > As far as distance goes, if they are trying to > setup an AP where the clients are 4 miles away, > over water, I believe them when they said it didn't > work. Timing definitly comes into play at those > distances and unless the AP is on a tower you'd > have lots of reflections. > > If there is a tower on the ridge you describe they > might be able to set up a wireless bridge. Having > the two end points as high as possible above the water > would keep the frensel zone from reflecting too much. > The bridges should easily do 4 miles since they can > compensate for the timing issues. > > -Tom __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
