Just noticed that the document also says that 5GHz is better for passing
through damp tree areas than 2.4GHz as 2.4GHz is very close to the O-H
frequency which water is full of and therefore water absorbs 2.4GHz signals
considerably more than 5GHz. If this is true then why is 2.4GHz better for
tree NLOS environments than 5GHz?

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul Hendry
Sent: 03 January 2006 11:48
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz

I thought that was it but needed someone to clarify ;) What about 5GHz
penetrating walls much better than 2.4GHz?

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Delp
Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz

Paul,

5 GHz works NLOS in an urban environment.  Bouncing around buildings, etc.
Look at the success of Redline and Orthogon.  OFDM and 5 GHz works well for
them.  An environment with trees is different.  Trees absorb the signals,
instead of bouncing them.  Especially wet trees!  

We utilize 2.4 at every pop, mainly because of the low cost for deployment,
and general coverage.  We utilize 5 GHz frequently and also 900 MHz for NLOS
issues.


I hope this helps

Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul Hendry
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:44 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz

Ola everybody,

        I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and are all ready
for 2006, the year of the WISP :)
        When I have setup wireless in an area it has always depended on the
Geographic's of the area as to if we deploy 2.4GHz or 5GHz and I have always
decided that 2.4 should be used where NLOS could be an issue. This decision
has always been based on the fact that the lower frequency will pass through
trees a lot easier however I have recently read a white paper that suggests
otherwise. Basically the document says that the higher the frequency, the
better the scatter (the ability to bounce of and around objects). It also
says that 5GHz is better at penetrating walls.
        So my question is, have I been basing some of our deployments on
false information or am I missing something here? I know that in tests I
have seen a more stable signal at 2.4GHz in a NLOS environment but is this
just a fluke?

Cheers,

P.
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.11/219 - Release Date: 02/01/2006
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.10/218 - Release Date: 1/2/2006


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.11/219 - Release Date: 02/01/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.11/219 - Release Date: 02/01/2006
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.11/219 - Release Date: 02/01/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.11/219 - Release Date: 02/01/2006
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to