Hi Dan, Thanks for pointing that out, where I apologize if I misunderstood. (it happens to the best of us on Usenet, from time to time).
I'm all for the cheapest best solution that does the job for pjp.
And, Lord knows, I have experience with those nanobeams, one of which is in my photo below, where you see it at the far left on the shelf (it's the dark tan steel dish to the left of the plastic dish powerbeam, and to the right of the T-Mobile cellular repeater on the shelf):
I've even written a tutorial on Usenet (of many) to help people set it up: o How to set up Ubiquiti Nanobeam M2 as an Access Point, wired to a wired extender, on WISP?
That tutorial was written in 2017, but since then, as I already noted to Johann, we've soured on the steel-dish nanobeams, in favor of the newer plastic-dish PowerBeams (which, we replaced with much larger 2GHz rockets, and then we replaced them with less-noise susceptible 5GHz rockets).
In fact, perfectly apropos for the topic of this thread, here is that same nanobeam connected to my IBM Thinkpad laptop, to vastly extend the WiFi range of that ThinkPad laptop so I could work outside by the pool.
Notice that you get hundreds of times the power of the laptop WiFi simply by plugging that nanobeam into the Ethernet port on the Thinkpad!
Maybe even thousands. o It's that simple to extend the WiFi range of a computer with Ethernet.
BTW, I have a few nanobeams myself in use, but I hate them, as we had to replace ALL of them, over time, for the powerbeams and then the rockets.
They're just unreliable in our use model (which I said prior to Johann): o Even so, how much cheaper are nanobeams than the newer $100 powerbeams?
If the NanoBeams are appreciable less expensive than the PowerBeams o I'm all for it since a kilometer for any of these radios is child's play
--
People converse on Usenet to exchange ideas with other helpful adults.
BTW, as Johann Beretta noted prior, you "could" pull the horn out of that radio, and it would be a LOT smaller, and still be a LOT more powerful than the utterly puny 30mW (or whatever) 1/2 dBi (or whatever) Wi-Fi output of that anemic IBM ThinkPad WiFi.
Notice that simply by plugging the Ethernet cable coming out of the horn into the Ethernet port of the IBM ThinkPad, the WiFi range of that laptop is instantly extended (by a LOT).
That's a key point of this thread, is that this power is availble to all. o If you simply know what to buy & what it can do for you when you have it
Thanks for locating the dongle that JP (presumably) had suggested:
Those things certainly are damn cheap, that's fer' sure! o If they work for pjp ... then that's a GREAT idea.
As you can see from this photo, I'm all for just plugging stuff into a typical laptop like my IBM ThinkPad to instantly extend its WiFi range:
I didn't think about it at the time I took that photo (in 2017), but, I could have pulled out the horn, as Johann Beretta noted, and then it would have been a LOT smaller also.
Those "dongles" list the "Mbps" but what about what really matters? o We need the transmit power & antenna gain
That's really what matters. o Whenever they won't say it ... I start worrying.
But I have to easily admit - those things are damn cheap! o If only they work!
Dunno.
Does anyone have experience with these things?
For example, one option for pjp is to only put the Ubiquiti radio on his roof and then use one of those dongles at the RV.
The limitation would be in the weakest equipment which, of course, would be the WiFi dongle so that's why it's critically important to ascertain: o What is the transmit power & antenna gain of those dongles?
--
Usenet is great as a public potluck where adults helpfully share ideas.
Thanks for the purposefully helpful terminology hint. o Particularly since the way Ubiquiti uses 'bridge' always confused me
From the Netgear KB article: o #1 Bridge: Network part 1 ... separation distance ... Network part 2 o #2 Bridge: Computer 1 ... sends traffic ... directly to computer 2
Even in _that_ article, the term "bridge" was loosely used. o Worse - I think - is how Ubiquiti seems (to me) to use that term! :)
For example, here is a photo of my "nanobridge" & "nanobeam" on the shelf o But, I always used them for exactly the same things (don't you?)
Here's a closeup snapshot of the back end of the respective horns:
In terms of size & construction, they're relatively similar in that they both have similarly sized steel dishes (those are magnets in the photo below) & plastic horns:
Which, kind of, is why I'm a bit confused about what's the difference o Between a "nanobeam" and a "nanobridge"
For now, based on your help, I'll call _this_ setup, a Nanobeam bridge! (More correctly, it's a "nanobeam bridge horn".) :)
--
Asking fact-based questions of strangers on the Usenet potluck for decades.
As you can see from the numerous worthless trolls who infested this thread o That they insist on proving they can't add any technical value whatsoever
It's clear this newsgroup is composed of extremely few of those "experts". o There's you & Jeff Liebermann who know enough to be considered damn good
Nobody else posted showing anywhere near your current knowledge level o Not even me - where at least I've used this stuff for years to do this In order to easily and vastly increase the range of my laptop.
Where the point of this thread was to ask others what distance they get. o And to also show others how they can EASILY increase their range too
Where that picture shows just one of many ways to bridge their laptop o Doing something as simple (& powerful) as connecting this to it
--
When Usenet works like it should, adults share useful information.
One more thing, which surprised me just now, is that when I log into the device that I've been calling a "PowerBeam" but which is labeled as a "NanoBeam M2", the router firmware shows up everywhere as "PowerBeam".
Specifically PowerBeam M2 or PowerBeam M2 400
Since it's unlikely I flashed the firmware, it could be that it came that way, which would agree with the fact I've always thought it was a PowerBeam from the day I had opened the box (as I recall, I think it was sent to me by my WISP to replace a NanoBridge I had prior lent out to replace a bad NanoBridge in the days we were swapping out NanoBridges due to its many failures in the field).
Based on the references I already quoted, others had problems with the NanoBridges that they didn't have with the PowerBeams, so again, I'd recommend, for pjp, he start with the PowerBeams and work down from there.
Even so, a kilometer for WiFi is utter child's play for these CPE devices. o Hence, for pjp to attain a puny kilometer over Wi-Fi is a given.
All pjp needs is to be able to "see" the antenna, where a bit of foliage is OK (there are tons of references of people pushing through foliage despite that there were a few trolls here who claimed it's not possible).
The signal strength is attenuated - but that's why you want the most powerful equipment that fits the application, not the most anemic.
--
Bringing useful ideas to share on the public Usenet potluck for decades.
Thanks for the details on the Fresnel Zone calculations. o Obviously all our stuff is typical Ubiquiti CPE
We often push through foliage, but, of course, we prefer not to. o And even then, only for short distances or sparse foliage
It's nice to know that the polarizations matter.
We're only using Ubiquiti (& some old Surfnet Mikrotik) wifi CPE stuff.
This "inversion layer" may be why some paths, which are about the same in length (all less than ten miles for example), have vastly different signal strength using the same rooftop devices to the same source access point.
In my situation, I'm only about 6 miles from the WiFi AP, where I generally get about -55 dBm on a Rocket M5 which, for me, is good enough.
It's mountain top to mountain top, so I'm not sure "if" an inversion layer is involved, as the heights are within a thousand feet or so of each other.
I don't profess to understand this stuff like you and Johann Beretta do, but what I "think" you're calling the fade margin is what I colloquially refer to as the "headroom", which is that I strive for a dozen decibels above what works.
I'll take 20 decibels above a working signal any day!
On this, I fully agree with you, in that, for example, the nanobridge M2 "should" work, and 'does' work, but for various degrees of "work".
When we went from the NanoBridge M2 to the NanoBeam M2, all of a sudden, with no other change, we got 3 to 8 decibels better signal strength. Who knows why or how.
Then, over time, we went to the much bigger Rockets, where we progressed from the M2 to the M5 due to noise considerations, where, at the moment, at about 6 miles distance for our WiFi access point, the Rocket M5 with a 34 dBi dish (maybe it's a 30 dBi dish?), our signal is fine at around -50 dBm with good quality metrics and noise floors around 104dBm (as I recall).
Heck, since I feel uncomfortable guessing, let me log into the rooftop radio and take a peek (I hate that "certificate error" we get every time) o Signal strength = -56 dBM (chain0/chain1 -58/-59dBm o Noise Floor = -104 dBm o Transmit CCQ = 76.5% o TX/RX Rate = 144.444 Mbps / 144.444 Mbps o airMAX = enabled o airMAX Quality = 97% o airMAX Capacity = 75%
That has no problem using a WiFi access point about 5 to 6 miles away.
I looked up a few articles on how far people push through foliage.
Here's the first hit explaining that "it's complex": "foliage attenuation is a function of a multitude of parameters, including frequency, foliage depth, tree types, foliage thickness, leaf density, leaf size, branches, trunks, humidity, wind speed, height of the tree relative to the antenna heights, path length through foliage, etc."
Lots of forum threads talk about WiFi penetration of foliage: o Effect of Wind on Foliage Obstructed Line-of-Sight Channel at 2.5 GHz o Ubiquiti Nanostation M2 & M5 penetration of 1.1km and 7 treetops o 500 meters of foliage o Networking over 0.5km with trees in line of sight o How severe is the attenuation of trees? o 2.5 KM link(right tools) through trees o High throughput foliage penetration o Outdoor wifi through wooded area o Device Selection for Tree Penetration? o Another 5ghz trees question o Best Wi-Fi frequency for penetrating woods o 2 kilometers with 500 meters of forest in between o How much signal do Trees block? o Non line of sight (NLOS) considerations for wireless o Any Ubiquiti equipment able to punch through trees? o WiFi to gate camera through trees o Ubiquiti Nanobeam for Point-to-Point wireless through some trees? o Long range (1000') outdoor WiFi connection transmission question o Does *anything* work through trees ? o Need to make a link over tree covered terrain o WISP and the love of Trees and Rural etc.
In the end, we just pop up a radio on each end and try it out.
We check signal strength, and, if it's good, we leave it working. If not, then we deal with changing things around.
Please get better.
You've helped advise us many times over the years, which we appreciate.
If only the trolls would disappear, Usenet would be a lot more valuable.
--
Asking questions & sharing useful information on Usenet for decades.
The useful takeaway is that we can fix our WiFi range by miles.
Facts: o On the outside, it's called a "nanobeam" o On the inside, it's called a "powerbeam" o And, the dish is steel.
Assessment: o Moving forward, I'll call it a "powerbeam"
In that photo above, you can use just the horn to extend your range by bridging your laptop Ethernet to WiFi, without much fuss as it's light plastic.
Essentially, you set up the router software & then you can plug that powerbeam horn into any Ethernet ready laptop or desktop to vastly extend the WiFi range. Except for price, this beats a USB dongle (IMHO), where it's certainly no more costly than adding a repeater would be.
You can use the laptop with both horn & dish, but it's gonna be bigger. At one time, the 400mm (and 620mm) diameter dish radios were known as
I have no problem naming the device formerly known as a nanobeam as a "powerbeam". o I was never one to quibble about such semantic things anyway
It's the trolls who can only quibble about such things that cloud the otherwise adult technical valuable conversations on Usenet.
Back to JP Gilliver's question and to pjp's question o I think any of the suggested Ubiquiti WiFi devices will work.
A LOS kilometer is puny for WiFi with these things, is it not?
Since we're trying to repair his Internet signal, we need to know of pjp a. What country b. What wind conditions
Let's clarify a few things for the general observer of this thread on that.
Since we're discussing TWIN devices, this "5AC" idea is feasible.
However, the distances are puny where 802.11 LOS will work just fine.
Plus, "5AC" generally costs more, where it's not needed (IMHO).
And the setup requires, at least "slightly" more knowledge.
Worse, WiFi re-use, which I do all the time Dan, is not possible.
Bear in mind, once you have one of these devices, you find uses for them!
Simply because, at WiFi they are as powerful as you can possibly get.
--
The useful takeaway is that you can extend your WiFi range by miles.
Clearly you and Jeff and Johann know far more than most here, including me, so here's a basic set of related questions which, I think, the answer to will edify MANY people on this ng!
WHAT RANGE CAN YOU ENVISION FOR THIS SETUP AT THE FAR CORNER OF A PROPERTY? o Either just the PowerBeam horn (set up legally) plugged into the laptop: Or, the entire PowerBeam (set up legally) plugged into a laptop RJ45: Pointing to, oh, say, this bullet & planar antenna set up near the house:
Assuming, of course, clear LOS, low to no interference, etc. stuff. o I haven't tested the range, but it works fine for hundreds of feet, Dan.
Do you think it could go much longer LOS, Dan?
The second question is more apropos for JP Gilliver's "cantenna" query: WHAT RANGE CAN YOU ENVISION FOR THAT SETUP TO A TYPICAL HOME SOHO ROUTER?
The answer to both those questions, would be of use to many I think: a. How far can the PowerBeam connect to a Bullet (& 15dBi) planar antenna b. How far can that same PowerBeam connect to a typical WiFi home router?
--
The answer to those questions, I posit, will astound some people.
Hi JP Gilliver, I did NOT run the math (I generally just test stuff out in practice), but I wanted to mention something when you noted the "cantenna" stuff we all played with many years ago (yes, me too, before I knew what I know now).
If anyone is contemplating extending the range of their Wi-Fi router, one of the _easiest_ ways to get up to the legal limit allowed by the FCC, is simply to plug this spare $100 PowerBeam horn into the back of the router.
Voila! Instant range. o In seconds, you now have a powerful omni access point at your router
Way better than any "cantenna" will ever be o Simply by plugging in the horn to the back of your router
It doesn't even need to be a "WiFi router" in fact o It could just be a switch!
It's really that easy to vastly extend the range of your home WiFi.
The point is that, after having futzed with all those "cantenna" ideas, and after having bought plenty of those consumer-grade WiFi extenders over the years, my advice is to simply plug one of those horns into your router.
Or, you can plug the horn into the laptop. o Or, both.
I don't know what range is possible under ideal conditions o But I've asked Dan Purgert to purposefully helpfully suggest what he thinks is possible under those two (actually three) conditions:
a. The PowerBeam horn plugged into the router RJ45 (legal setup) b. The PowerBeam horn plugged into the laptop RJ45 (legal setup) c. The PowerBeam horn plugged into both the router & the laptop
Whatever range under ideal conditions that Dan Purgert assesses o I would say are easily doable by ANYONE on this newsgroup who needs it
I suspect the Wi-Fi range under ideal conditions will be measured in miles o But I will defer to Dan Purgert's greater knowledge in that area
--
You will likely be astounded at what range you obtain with this setup.
I'm advocating they plug the device into the any RJ45 they have handy o Voila! Instant WiFi extended range!
Everything I speak about here is range that almost anyone here can attain o Simply by using the Plain Jane Wi-Fi 802.11 protocols they already use
For example, they can plug this PowerBeam horn into a router or switch o And by doing so, they instantly attain Wi-Fi range at maximum legal power
Note very clearly Dan Purgert ... this works with EVERYTHING they have now o It works with mobile devices, laptops, desktops, routers, switches, etc.
*It works with anything & _everything_ that uses Plain Jane Wi-Fi, Dan.*
You are, apparently, advocating non-Wi-Fi protocols, for "long shots" o Which is fine, for "long shots"... but it doesn't work with everything
Even so, you said (& I agree) that Plain Jane Wi-Fi can go for miles o In this thread, I'm advocating use of Plain Jane "Wi-Fi" devices
You apparently have a pre-defined predilection for the non-Wi-Fi protocols o But your innate preference for those specific non-Wi-Fi protocols o Does not make suggestions based on Plain Jane Wi-Fi protocols "daft"
It just doesn't.
Non-Wi-Fi protocols are simply another way of accomplishing the same task o Particularly for "long hauls" (where you're talking many miles)
Which is fine but that's NOT what this thread is mostly about Dan. o Even pjp's distances are laughably puny for Wi-Fi protocols, Dan.
So stop saying that the use of WiFi protocols to extend range is daft, Dan. o The WiFi protocols work just fine for extending range at home, Dan.
If someone on this thread simply wants to increase their range at home o Then the Plain Jane 802.11 WiFi protocols are just fine, Dan.
In fact, the Plain Jane 802.11 protocols with EVERYTHING they have, Dan. o For you to imply that's "daft", is, well, it's daft Dan.
I have nothing against your suggestion of non-Wi-Fi protocols o But EVERYTHING I'm suggesting to extend home range is via WiFi protocols
It's not daft, Dan, to use WiFi protocols to extend range at home. o In fact, it's a great idea for home use that works wonderfully well
I'm advocating they plug the device into the any RJ45 they have handy o Voila! Instant WiFi extended range!
Ubiquiti is using it correctly. A wireless bridge connects two wired networks or segments of one network. That's exactly what you have when you set up wifi. It's a wire at both ends with wireless in the middle. A network, or network segment, need not be multiple devices. A single device qualifies.
The nanobridge's had larger dishes (and higher gain). The nanobeams were the newer product with slightly better CPUs And, I suspect, were designed for much shorter links.
decibel =3D a logarithmic scale used to reference one unit of power to another. (which is why you can't transmit in decibels. A decibel is a dimensionless unit. It's used to quantify the ratio between two values, such as signal-to-noise ratio.)
dBm =3D power ratio in reference to a milliwatt
dBi =3D power ratio in reference to an isotropic transmitter. (isotropic is equal in all directions)
Thank you for those decibel & milliwatt clarifications, where the members of the chosen newsgroups likely have pretty good comprehension of the math. o o o
What's nice is that our conversation showing how easy it is to extend the range of WiFi is 'permanently' archived in the typical web searchable sites such that others can benefit from the information you and I and Jeff Liebermann shared, now, and long into the future. o o o
I consider my main shared "item of technical value" was simply that... A. People _can_ obtain this "instant extended range" B. Relatively easily (by plugging these devices into RJ45 ports) C. At "about" the same cost as they pay today for less powerful devices
For example, plugging a properly configured PowerBeam horn into a laptop instantly provides the laptop with a powerful bridge to WiFi access points.
Just as plugging in that same horn into your spare old router would instantly & vastly extend the range of otherwise unused router, would it not? (Focus on range, as speeds are limited to the slowest device.)
And, while I've never tried it, I don't see any reason plugging that horn into the back of a "dumb switch" wouldn't also turn it into a powerful omni access point, do you?
Since I haven't tried the switch idea, I'd ask others here who have o Wouldn't all those arrangements work to instantly "extend the range" (where extending the range of a switch is to add the access point).
--
Usenet is a public potluck where adults share their knowlege & experience.
As an interesting, timely, & somewhat related aside, note this news today where people are going to what I'd consider a lot of trouble, just to extend WiFi by 200 feet: o BYU researchers extend WiFi range by 200 feet with a software upgrade
Notice that the EnGadget guys explain what levels people go to in order to extend WiFi range, by 67 meters "beyond the range of standard WiFi".
Here's the lion's share of the proposal... (verbatim to the post end)
"But researchers think there might be another way: a software protocol that extends the distance connected devices can send and receive WiFi by more than 60 meters.
The researchers, led by Brigham Young Unviersity, have dubbed the protocol On-Off Noise Power Communication (ONPC). While WiFi typically requires speeds of at least one megabit per second to maintain a signal, the ONPC protocol can maintain a signal on as little as one one bit per second. That's one millionth of the data speed typically required.
The protocol does this by allowing WiFi-enabled devices to send wireless noise as well as data. According to BYU, it allows the device to send a series of 1s and 0s, essentially turning on and off its signal in a specific pattern. That's enough to tell the WiFi router that the device is still transmitting something (even if no data is being received) and maintain the signal.
"It's basically sending 1 bit of information that says it's alive," says Professor Neal Patawri of Washington University in St. Louis.
When put to the test, the ONPC protocol allowed the researchers to extend the range of an off-the-shelf device 67 meters beyond the range of standard WiFi."
--
It does have a cost advantage though, as presumably, it would be free.
I suspect that's exactly what it would do... And maybe we finally have a legitimate reason for the 3dbm setting in the config file.
Well, there's more to it than just plugging it in and instantly extending the range.
For one, you need to configure it. LAN settings.. WAN settings.. You're gonna need to disable AIRMax, which is on by default. You need to set your WPA2 password/phrase and you, most certainly, need to set an SSID.
And you really, really, should adjust the transmit power to an appropriate level so one isn't another RF asshole blasting noise far beyond what is needed. If you want better WiFi and you live in a tract home, then setting the transmit power to 28dbm is a dick move.
If you live in the middle of Montana and there's not another house for
10 miles, and you'd like max coverage, then maybe 28dbm is appropriate.
Failing to do the above with a 2.4GHz device should be a capital crime. there's only 3 non-overlapping (at 20MHz) channels.. Your neighbor picking up your signal at full bars means you've just f***ed him out of being able to use one of those three. Three neighbors can make wifi miserable for all involved.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.