I believe many windows have metal in them to reduce the UV penetration that also reduces the RF pass-through.
I have a similar situation in my car I purchased earlier this year. My radar detector is now useless due to this scenario. I assume the same hold true for your wireless link. Cliff -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz vs 5GHz 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. -Matt 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----- >> 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. >> >> >> >> > > -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
