John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:51:02 -0500, Bob Willard
><BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote in
><gdqdncp5uZavUXvYnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@comcast.com>:
>
>>Booster wrote:
>>
>>> Hi! I live in a flat and I'd like to create a WLAN to share files and
>>> Internet connection with my brother who lives 6 flats next to me
>>> (about 50 meters): is there a possibility to create a wireless
>>> connection? We are il the same "side" of the building and there are no
>>> obstacle between us. What's your experience about this? What kind of
>>> device I could need? Professional devices? Or just consumer devices?
>>> Maybe I need two access-point with bridge capabilities. My budget is
>>> not much than 200 $...
>>> Thank you!
>>
>>WiFi needs LOS (Line Of Sight) between the two antennae. While a single
>>drywall-on-wood wall will only attenuate the signal a bit, ...
>The actual attenuation of a 4" hollow wall is about 5 dB, which is a
>pretty big loss. See <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi#Indoor>
I'll call your 5dB and raise you a decibel for the drywall. See:
<http://www.thirdbreak.org/pipermail/wireless/2005-June/000804.html>
The 3com list you provided looks fairly reasonable, but has problems.
Normally, a range of values are specified. I've used various signals
strength indications to measure attenuation. The problem with the
typical WiFi client is that the signal strength is derived from the
RSSI from a value of 0 to 256. That's not very good dynamic range and
is guaranteed to result in some rather strange numbers. The same test
done with a spectrum analyzer is much better.
Life also gets interesting when assuming that wall attenuation is
merely a measure of the number of walls times the attenuation per wall
along the straight line of sight. That works fine for 1 or 2 walls,
but fails miserably at 3 or more. What happens is that the RF tends
to reflect, bounce, refract, and generally follow the path of least
resistance. An open door or window offers less attenuation than a
solid wall or two. So, as the attenuation through the wall goes up,
the relative signal loss through the doorway or window becomes more
significant. For example, I was exactly such a test measuring wall
penetration in an office building. After about 5 walls, the signal
strength was almost constant, regardless of the number of additional
walls introduced. I eventually determined that the signal was going
out a window, bouncing off the adjacent office building, and returning
through another window.
Another clue is to look at the original 3com document, which included
the 802.11a (5.7GHz) attenuation. In some cases, the attenuation at
5.7GHz is more than 2.4GHz, in other cases, it's the other way around,
which seems rather odd. In some cases, the difference is spectacular,
in others, nominal, which is also odd. I've tabulated the differences
below (and fixed the dBi label to dB).
<http://www.3com.com/other/pdfs/products/en_US/101900.pdf>
BUILDING MATERIAL 5GHZ 2.4GHZ
ATTENUATION (dB) (dB) (diff dB)
Solid Wood Door 1.75" 10 6 +4
Hollow Wood Door 1.75" 7 4 +3
Interior Office Door w/Window 1.75"/0.5" 6 4 +2
Steel Fire/Exit Door 1.75" 25 13 +12
Steel Fire/Exit Door 2.5" 32 19 +13
Steel Rollup Door 1.5" 19 11 +7
Brick 3.5" 10 6 +4
Concrete Wall 18" 30 18 +13
Cubical Wall (Fabric) 2.25" 30 18 +13
Exterior Concrete Wall 27" 45 53 -8
Glass Divider 0.5" 8 12 -4
Interior Hollow Wall 4" 3 5 -2
Interior Hollow Wall 6" 4 9 -5
Interior Solid Wall 5" 16 14 +2
Marble 2" 10 6 +4
Bullet-Proof Glass 1" 20 10 +10
Exterior Double Pane Coated Glass 1" 20 13 +7
Exterior Single Pane Window 0.5" 6 7 -1
Interior Office Window 1" 6 3 +3
Safety Glass-Wire 0.25" 2 3 -1
Safety Glass-Wire 1.0" 18 13 +5
Note the huge variation in the difference between 5.7GHz and 2.4Ghz
attenuation. If we eliminate structures with reflective content
(anything with metal), the theoretical difference in attenuation for
purely absorptive materials should be about +3dB. There are a few
such "solid" materials listed but only a few seem to follow theory.
Glass and concrete seems to be a problem.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that there are HUGE variations in
such numbers, that they are difficult to reproduce, that testing
methods cause substantial errors, and that your mileage may vary.
--
Jeff Liebermann
jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060
http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558