We have a 5.8Ghz link where the antenna is directly behind concrete that works significantly better than through the windows in the same building.


Blair Davis wrote:

My practical tests show that 2.4GHz works better in a rural Near LosS environment. This is using 802.11b/g vs 802.11a.

I have had no luck with 5.3/5.8GHz in a rural Near/Non LoS environment. On the other hand, 5.8Ghz seems to be fine at range in LoS conditions.

Go figure.

Paul Hendry wrote:

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-----
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-----
Behalf Of Mike Delp
Sent: 03 January 2006 11:44
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz


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

I hope this helps


-----Original Message-----
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?



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

Reply via email to