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: wireless@wispa.org

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

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