Effective Range/Throughput - Comparisons and review - (see postings 31-01-06)

In the preceding thread the following link was mentioned
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials...le.php/1495031
in which as the author writes that one can expect an indoor
range of 150m using 802.11b and outdoors a range of greater
than 500 meters !

I have read plenty of Faqs on this and some are often quoted
such as the Navas Faq
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for...Fi#Link_Calcul
ations
in which there are interesting comments on this type of concern
and links such as that of the Intel Hotspot.
ftp://download.intel.com/business/bs...deployment/hot
spot.pdf

In fact John Navas justly coments :
>The rather optimistic ranges listed are probably with a better than
>standard omnidirectional antenna and with unobstructed line of sight.

Does anybody know of an updated Field Performance Test Comparison Table ?

eg : Card Name/AP Name/Mode/Distance/Signal/Throughput etc
and then testing through the various distances until the signal
is lost. Then change mode, then change X, change Y etc.

One could the compare the Named product couple with others
[entered as records] dealing with, for example, the same AP but a
different card.

The throughput should be tested using an impartial Net Tool not
the Product Control Module if it has one.
Ixia QCheck is a good Win possibility and in Linux there are
plenty of choices.

Personally I have never witnessed a fully working efficient
Wlan link at 150m indoors going through numerous walls and
other obstructions. I have read of several firms who pretend such
performance and yet when I went out and tested the stuff the result
was disappointing, disastrous would be more appropriate.

eg: Table for AP's/Card's expected field performance
Conditions : Perfect LOS, Standard Antennae and Original FW.
Standard environmental conditions and a non tweaked setup
[==> Little interference for optimal initial conditions]

On 100+m (not >400m) I have found that the signal was low
and the througput was only usable for an Internet connection.
Little chance of considering a real Office Client/Server connection.
It was down to a variable 1-peaks of 2 Mbs.
At 150m the signal/connection dropped too often]

Some other experts consider that there is far too much Hype
around and that a good connection is only available at around
60m max
In fact this is far closer to my findings than that written on the
Product Spec Sheets.

To have a Signal Connection or Throughput Peak is of little
interest here.

Take for example the often quoted' standard WAP54 series with
a standard setup, no encryption etc.
Take a standard Card (eg. WPC54 series)
What have you found ?
At 10 meters save a 10 MB file to you server,?
What was the duration/signal stability/throughput ?
Note other ranges up to unusable.
Has anybody managed to upload a 10 MB file over
a 500 meter link with a fully efficient B connection using standard
out of box 2dB antennae?

Any comments, suggestions or links would be most appreciated.

A table with the conclusions could be published here for benefit of
all, including any comments on the efficiency of the Firms Support
team to resolve any issues evolving during your experience.

Thanks

"nourght" <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

I just hate it when someone posts an interesting question and I don't
have enough time for a proper answer. This may come in two or more
parts.

>http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials...le.php/1495031
>http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for...k_Calculations
>ftp://download.intel.com/business/bs...nt/hotspot.pdf

>In fact John Navas justly coments :
>>The rather optimistic ranges listed are probably with a better than
>>standard omnidirectional antenna and with unobstructed line of sight.

Ummm... I wrote that part. The numbers used by Intel are rather
optimistic and assume an ideal location, no interference, no
reflections, no obstructions, and radios that actually meet their
published specifications. The tests were also performed at fairly low
and useless speeds (1 or 2 Mbit/sec association).

>Does anybody know of an updated Field Performance Test Comparison Table ?

No, but you can make your own quite easily. I'll do it when I have
time. Start with your favorite access point and 802.11g laptop. Start
in close to the access point and start moving some streaming data.
Streaming video or large file copies are good. Watch the connection
speed. When it drops from 54Mbits/sec to 48Mbit/sec, stop and measure
the distance. Move VERY slowly as it takes a while for the system to
react. It's usually about 15ft when I try it. Do it again at
different speeds until you run out of walking room. Make the speed
transition points on a graph. The points will be all over the graph
but a pattern will emerge.

Another (better but more tedious) way to do the test is to lock the
speed at the access point to some speed (i.e. 54Mbits/sec) and move
away until the error rate goes up sufficiently to be useless. Notice
I didn't say until it disconnects because that can take quite some
time. Using the Windoze performance meter to monitor thruput for a
file copy is a good indication of error rate. Repeat at different
fixed speeds.

You can also extrapolate from a few points by using the receiver
sensitivity change versus connection speed. See the first table at:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for...k_Calculations
Inverse square law says that -6dB change in power results from a time
two change in range. If you get 15ft at 54Mbits/sec, and the receive
sensitivity is -68dBm, then at 6dB less, you'll have twice the range.
Looking at the chart -74dBm sensitivity is 36Mbits/sec. Therefore, at
30ft, you should slow down to 36Mbits/sec.

>eg : Card Name/AP Name/Mode/Distance/Signal/Throughput etc
>and then testing through the various distances until the signal
>is lost. Then change mode, then change X, change Y etc.

I have some results but they belong to the client. However, I can
easily run the tests again. Be prepared for huge variations from
theoretical.

>One could the compare the Named product couple with others
>[entered as records] dealing with, for example, the same AP but a
>different card.
>
>The throughput should be tested using an impartial Net Tool not
>the Product Control Module if it has one.
>Ixia QCheck is a good Win possibility and in Linux there are
>plenty of choices.

That's fine. Just remember that there needs to be a reference level
for BER (bit error rate) or thruput drop at the various distances. You
could do something sloppy like "when the file copy thruput drops in
half" or something similar. It doesn't matter what reference you use
as long as it is consistently applied.

>Personally I have never witnessed a fully working efficient
>Wlan link at 150m indoors going through numerous walls and
>other obstructions.

How many indoor buildings are there that are the size of a football
field or larger? Obviously, 150meters is not an indoor test.

What's a wall worth in dB? I collected a few charts of material
attenuation and posted them at:
http://www.thirdbreak.org/pipermail/...ne/000804.html
Let's pretend that a "typical" wall is good for -6dB attenuation. That
means for every wall the signal has to go through, the maximum range
is cut in half. Actually, the combination of reflections and material
attenuation result in far worse range loss.

>I have read of several firms who pretend such
>performance and yet when I went out and tested the stuff the result
>was disappointing, disastrous would be more appropriate.

Yep. They probably tested this with a production access point, an
insipid antenna, a highly reflective office environment, interfernce
coming in through large windows, and a laptop with its worthless
antenna. These are far from ideal, but represent the most common
wireless arrangement.

Let's play with the numbers and see what worst case produces instead
of best case. Going to the link calcs at:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for...k_Calculations
and plugging in some numbers. A WRT54G dribbles about +15dBm tx
power. The antenna is about 2dBi gain, but the coax and connectors
eat about -1dB in loss. The laptop uses an marginal receiver with
about -88dBm sensitivity at 6Mbits/sec connection speed, the slowest
OFDM speed. The ceramic backed antennas in the laptop lid are good
for about -2dBi gain and another -2dB in coax and connector losses.
I'll aim for 20dB fade margin (just to be consistent).

TX power = +15dBm
TX coax loss = 1dB
TX ant gain = 2dBi
Distance = unknown
RX ant gain = -2dBi
RX coax loss = -2dB
RX sens = -88dBm (at 6Mbits/sec)
Fade margin = 20dB

Plugging into:
http://www.terabeam.com/support/calculations/som.php
and trying various distances until I get about 20dB fade margin, I get
a range of 0.06 miles or 316ft. That's quite good at 6Mbits/sec.
Maybe I'm being too optimisitic somewhere.

Now, running the same numbers with a receive sensitivity of -68dBm at
54Mbits/sec, I get 0.006 miles or 32ft. So, your range is going to
be between those numbers (for OFDM).

>eg: Table for AP's/Card's expected field performance
>Conditions : Perfect LOS, Standard Antennae and Original FW.
>Standard environmental conditions and a non tweaked setup
>[==> Little interference for optimal initial conditions]

Gaaak. Where am I going to find an interference and reflection free
environment the size of a football field? Over water?

>On 100+m (not >400m) I have found that the signal was low
>and the througput was only usable for an Internet connection.
>Little chance of considering a real Office Client/Server connection.

Well, what are you standards for an acceptable connection? The 20dB
fade margin is 100 times the signal necessary to produce the BER of
1*10^5 reference ( 1 error for every 10^5 bits). That's more than
adequate for office communications.

As an asside, I have a customer that has some goofy cash register
program that absolutly will not tolerate any packet loss. Their
database client server program literally hangs or dies if even one
packet is lost. It's not a security feature, just old crappy design.
If you're having problems maintaining database intergrity over a
wireless link, check on how well you application tolerates packet loss
before you assume it's a wireless issue. May I suggest DummyNet at:
http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ip_dummynet/
for simulating packet loss.

>It was down to a variable 1-peaks of 2 Mbs.
>At 150m the signal/connection dropped too often]

What were you using for testing? How many walls?

>Some other experts consider that there is far too much Hype
>around and that a good connection is only available at around
>60m max

"Good" is how how many dB of fade margin over the receiver sensitivity
(at a BER of 1*10^5). Per my first calculation, one should be able to
do 300ft at 6Mbit/sec OFDM association. If not, either one of my
assumptions is off, my calculations suck, or some part of the puzzle
is not meeting published specifications. I really don't know which is
the case here.

>In fact this is far closer to my findings than that written on the
>Product Spec Sheets.
>
>To have a Signal Connection or Throughput Peak is of little
>interest here.
>
>Take for example the often quoted' standard WAP54 series with
>a standard setup, no encryption etc.
>Take a standard Card (eg. WPC54 series)
>What have you found ?
>At 10 meters save a 10 MB file to you server,?
>What was the duration/signal stability/throughput ?
>Note other ranges up to unusable.
>Has anybody managed to upload a 10 MB file over
>a 500 meter link with a fully efficient B connection using standard
>out of box 2dB antennae?
>
>Any comments, suggestions or links would be most appreciated.
>
>A table with the conclusions could be published here for benefit of
>all, including any comments on the efficiency of the Firms Support
>team to resolve any issues evolving during your experience.
>
>Thanks
>

Gotta run...
--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:49:32 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Let's play with the numbers and see what worst case produces instead
>of best case. Going to the link calcs at:
>http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for...k_Calculations
>and plugging in some numbers. A WRT54G dribbles about +15dBm tx
>power. The antenna is about 2dBi gain, but the coax and connectors
>eat about -1dB in loss. The laptop uses an marginal receiver with
>about -88dBm sensitivity at 6Mbits/sec connection speed, the slowest
>OFDM speed. The ceramic backed antennas in the laptop lid are good
>for about -2dBi gain and another -2dB in coax and connector losses.
>I'll aim for 20dB fade margin (just to be consistent).
>
> TX power = +15dBm
> TX coax loss = 1dB
> TX ant gain = 2dBi
> Distance = unknown
> RX ant gain = -2dBi
> RX coax loss = -2dB
> RX sens = -88dBm (at 6Mbits/sec)
> Fade margin = 20dB
>
>Plugging into:
>http://www.terabeam.com/support/calculations/som.php
>and trying various distances until I get about 20dB fade margin, I get
>a range of 0.06 miles or 316ft. That's quite good at 6Mbits/sec.
>Maybe I'm being too optimisitic somewhere.
>
>Now, running the same numbers with a receive sensitivity of -68dBm at
>54Mbits/sec, I get 0.006 miles or 32ft. So, your range is going to
>be between those numbers (for OFDM).

I suspected that was too good to be true. The range is about twice
what I would expect from worst case calcs. Let's try again with
better numbers.

The RX coax loss and RX sensitivity on the laptop end are the problem.
I just ripped apart a Toshiblah A75-S213:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/A75-S213/
and noticed that the tiny coax cables to the antennas are about 2ft
long. I only allowed for -2dB coax and connector loss. The
connectors are Hirose u-FL or iPex MHF connectors. The coax appears
to be Sumitomo 0.4DS-PBA-H with an attentuation of about 7dB/meter
(extrapolated from unreadable graph), or about -5dB loss for the coax
and about 0.5dB for the connector.

I dug out some tests I made with an Intel 2200BG card at various
speeds. The numbers from my chart came from a DLink DI-624 and tend to
be somewhat better than those found in the typical MiniPCI client
radio. I found that the RX sensitivity at 6Mbits/sec (slowest ODFM
speed) was about -84dB at the connector (including compensation for
test leads). Therefore, the numbers should look like:

TX power = +15dBm
TX coax loss = 1dB
TX ant gain = 2dBi
Distance = unknown
RX ant gain = -2dBi
RX coax loss = -5.5dB (including connectors)
RX sens = -84dBm (at 6Mbits/sec)
Fade margin = 20dB

http://www.terabeam.com/support/calculations/som.php
I now get 0.025 miles or 132ft. That's about right.

For 54Mbits/sec, the sensitivity is about -63dBm from my 2200BG
tinkering, which yields a range of 0.0022 miles or 11.6ft. Yeah,
that's a bit shorter than I expect but in the ballpark.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Hello Jeff,
How nice of you to participate. Its a little late. Hope this is readable ...

"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "nourght" <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>
> I just hate it when someone posts an interesting question and I don't
> have enough time for a proper answer. This may come in two or more parts.

Glad that at least you find this argument of some interest.

> >http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials...le.php/1495031
>
>http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for...-Fi#Link_Calcu
lations
>
>ftp://download.intel.com/business/bs.../deployment/ho
tspot.pdf
>
> >In fact John Navas justly coments :
> >>The rather optimistic ranges listed are probably with a better than
> >>standard omnidirectional antenna and with unobstructed line of sight.
>
> Ummm... I wrote that part. The numbers used by Intel are rather
> optimistic and assume an ideal location, no interference, no
> reflections, no obstructions, and radios that actually meet their
> published specifications. The tests were also performed at fairly low
> and useless speeds (1 or 2 Mbit/sec association).

I do beg your pardon, I was under the impression that it was from a text
snip
from John Navas, but I was working very late and perhaps I mistook the
author.

> >Does anybody know of an updated Field Performance Test Comparison Table
?

> No, but you can make your own quite easily. I'll do it when I have
> time. Start with your favorite access point and 802.11g laptop. Start

The idea was basically that of a common pool of data.
On my own I cannot test all the combinations or even all the models
The participation of any interested Wlan technician would be appropriate
here

> in close to the access point and start moving some streaming data.
> Streaming video or large file copies are good. Watch the connection
> speed. When it drops from 54Mbits/sec to 48Mbit/sec, stop and measure
> the distance. Move VERY slowly as it takes a while for the system to
> react. It's usually about 15ft when I try it. Do it again at
> different speeds until you run out of walking room. Make the speed
> transition points on a graph. The points will be all over the graph
> but a pattern will emerge.

In fact this was more or less the method I had adopted last weekend going
from
0 - 150m ca and using a Net Performance tool to measure the corresponding
throughput. Due to lack of time I examined only distance as the pivot factor
and
noted the measured throughput and corresponding SNR. 5 distances tested over
the range each run several times. The result was really rather upsetting.
Considering the quotes promised in the Tech Specs of the components employed
and the assurances, or should I say 'lack of ', of the so called qualified
techicians on
a well known Firms Support Desk, I am concerned that something is amiss.

I am a little surprised that this type of chart has not been developed by
members
of this and other similar Forums. It would not be difficult to create a
simple Web
Form with the necessary fields and relate it to a Database which can be
interrogated
or which can be downloaded.
As a simple base meter it would be simple to read as a reference and I
believe
very useful for elementary tests.
[Of course this supposes a professionally scrupulous and honest behaviour of
the
colleagues who wish to insert the records.]

> Another (better but more tedious) way to do the test is to lock the
> speed at the access point to some speed (i.e. 54Mbits/sec) and move
> away until the error rate goes up sufficiently to be useless. Notice
> I didn't say until it disconnects because that can take quite some
> time. Using the Windoze performance meter to monitor thruput for a
> file copy is a good indication of error rate. Repeat at different
> fixed speeds.

This is an interesting point.
Sometimes AP's (and cards) when set to a modest fixed mode and speed
transfer
data with a more stable signal and, in the long run, better throughput than
when set
to Auto which may start at G/54 Mbs and then drop to a wavering
B/11,14,8,12,
17,6 etc. I have read confirmations of this from others also. Comments?

> You can also extrapolate from a few points by using the receiver
> sensitivity change versus connection speed. See the first table at:
>
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for...Fi#Link_Calcul
ations
> Inverse square law says that -6dB change in power results from a time
> two change in range. If you get 15ft at 54Mbits/sec, and the receive
> sensitivity is -68dBm, then at 6dB less, you'll have twice the range.
> Looking at the chart -74dBm sensitivity is 36Mbits/sec. Therefore, at
> 30ft, you should slow down to 36Mbits/sec.

> >eg : Card Name/AP Name/Mode/Distance/Signal/Throughput etc
> >and then testing through the various distances until the signal
> >is lost. Then change mode, then change X, change Y etc.

> I have some results but they belong to the client. However, I can
> easily run the tests again. Be prepared for huge variations from
theoretical.

Concerning this theme, I would be very interested to hear from you.

> >One could the compare the Named product couple with others
> >[entered as records] dealing with, for example, the same AP but a
> >different card.
> >
> >The throughput should be tested using an impartial Net Tool not
> >the Product Control Module if it has one.
> >Ixia QCheck is a good Win possibility and in Linux there are
> >plenty of choices.
>
> That's fine. Just remember that there needs to be a reference level
> for BER (bit error rate) or thruput drop at the various distances. You
> could do something sloppy like "when the file copy thruput drops in
> half" or something similar. It doesn't matter what reference you use
> as long as it is consistently applied.
>
> >Personally I have never witnessed a fully working efficient Wlan link
>> at 150m indoors going through numerous walls and other obstructions.

> How many indoor buildings are there that are the size of a football
> field or larger? Obviously, 150 meters is not an indoor test.

This of course was a rather caustic comment of mine :-)
It was based precisely on a couple of Spec Sheets from Linksys in which
they state that the cards cover such 'indoor ranges' (B mode.)
However it is equally true to say that I have not witnessed a fully fledged
Wlan running G Mode over an 80m Warehouse with a constant 24 Mbs.
I would be interested to know who has and how many walls etc the signal
passed through.
[Remember I proposed this query considering standard Antennae and non
boosted cards or AP's.]

> What's a wall worth in dB? I collected a few charts of material
> attenuation and posted them at:
> http://www.thirdbreak.org/pipermail/...ne/000804.html

Thanks for the link, tonight however it seemed dead.
Please post an update, I am interested to add your data to another table
that I have been assembling recently.

> Let's pretend that a "typical" wall is good for -6dB attenuation. That
> means for every wall the signal has to go through, the maximum range
> is cut in half. Actually, the combination of reflections and material
> attenuation result in far worse range loss.

> >I have read of several firms who pretend such performance and yet when
>>I went out and tested the stuff the result was disappointing, disastrous
would
>>be more appropriate.

> Yep. They probably tested this with a production access point, an
> insipid antenna, a highly reflective office environment, interfernce
> coming in through large windows, and a laptop with its worthless
> antenna. These are far from ideal, but represent the most common
> wireless arrangement.

> Let's play with the numbers and see what worst case produces instead
> of best case. Going to the link calcs at:
>
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for...Fi#Link_Calcul
ations
> and plugging in some numbers. A WRT54G dribbles about +15dBm tx
> power. The antenna is about 2dBi gain, but the coax and connectors
> eat about -1dB in loss. The laptop uses an marginal receiver with
> about -88dBm sensitivity at 6Mbits/sec connection speed, the slowest
> OFDM speed. The ceramic backed antennas in the laptop lid are good
> for about -2dBi gain and another -2dB in coax and connector losses.
> I'll aim for 20dB fade margin (just to be consistent).
>
> TX power = +15dBm
> TX coax loss = 1dB
> TX ant gain = 2dBi
> Distance = unknown
> RX ant gain = -2dBi
> RX coax loss = -2dB
> RX sens = -88dBm (at 6Mbits/sec)
> Fade margin = 20dB
>
> Plugging into:
> http://www.terabeam.com/support/calculations/som.php
> and trying various distances until I get about 20dB fade margin, I get
> a range of 0.06 miles or 316ft. That's quite good at 6Mbits/sec.
> Maybe I'm being too optimisitic somewhere.

100 m at 6 Mbs ?
Perhaps the 88dBm sensitivity at 6Mbits/sec is better than the common
cards on the market.. I guess much much better than the card I had
during one of the tests (WPC54G <--->WAP54G).
I have noted that few cards (Orinoco, Cisco, Senao, Denmarc etc)
approach or surpass the 90dBm and generally they are already down to a
couple of Mbs. Do you agree ?
Coincidently I had downloaded the Terabeam SW some weeks ago.

> Now, running the same numbers with a receive sensitivity of -68dBm at
> 54Mbits/sec, I get 0.006 miles or 32ft. So, your range is going to
> be between those numbers (for OFDM).

Exactly.

> >eg: Table for AP's/Card's expected field performance
> >Conditions : Perfect LOS, Standard Antennae and Original FW.
> >Standard environmental conditions and a non tweaked setup
> >[==> Little interference for optimal initial conditions]

> Gaaak. Where am I going to find an interference and reflection free
> environment the size of a football field? Over water?

:-) As you stated before, one needs a base reference.
I was merely considering typical differences in well known conditions.
eg: in the city center /in the country (obviously not under a high tension
cabling, in a nuclear power station, near industrial motors etc.
and of course during the primary tests if possibile without GSM, faulty
electrical equipment nearby, nieghbours disturbing stuff on etc
Or the difference from in the work office surrounded by offices and all
the general 'background noise' to a slightly less EMF polluted area
temporarily without the usual interferences (residential or otherwise)
Just to enable a slightly simpler interpretation of the primary results
from the tests. This does not of course pretend the unattainable silence.

> >On 100+m (not >400m) I have found that the signal was low
> >and the throughput was only usable for an Internet connection.
> >Little chance of considering a real Office Client/Server connection.

> Well, what are you standards for an acceptable connection? The 20dB
> fade margin is 100 times the signal necessary to produce the BER of
> 1*10^5 reference ( 1 error for every 10^5 bits). That's more than
> adequate for office communications.

I was considering her basically two types of simple 'acceptable
connections'....
(for simple client setups that is.)
We are yet considering medium or large installations. The aim here is to to
be able to obtain a reasonable idea of the working real life potential of
the
components in recognisable conditions and then extrapolate from there
to have an idea on how best to work in less favourable conditions

The first is a connection stable and fast enough to support general modest
size office work (text files, spread sheets, printing, modest DB client
server
apps, and of course Internet apps. I believe from experience that people
start complaining when they go under 10 Mbs for the first part and nowadays,
with DSL around, also if they go under a constant 0,75 Mbs x Internet Apps.
This is for point to point, we are not yet considering concurrent users
and shared bandwidth.
As said, its to test what can be done as a max in basic P2P test.
It's pretty clear that for any installation that forsees a large number of
users
and/or several floors and/or certain apps a survey and a study needs to be
planned. However notwithstanding this a simlar impartial table of field
results
might be very useful to many persons. (Suppliers included !)

> As an asside, I have a customer that has some goofy cash register
> program that absolutely will not tolerate any packet loss. Their
> database client server program literally hangs or dies if even one
> packet is lost. It's not a security feature, just old crappy design.
> If you're having problems maintaining database intergrity over a
> wireless link, check on how well you application tolerates packet loss
> before you assume it's a wireless issue. May I suggest DummyNet at:
> http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ip_dummynet/
> for simulating packet loss.

Interesting link, thanks.

> >It was down to a variable 1-peaks of 2 Mbs.
> >At 150m the signal/connection dropped too often]
>
> What were you using for testing? How many walls?

As stated before Outdoors pure LOS = no walls
(WPC54G <--->WAP54G).
In fact I am concerned that the AP might be faulty in some way.

> >Some other experts consider that there is far too much Hype
> >around and that a good connection is only available at around
> >60m max

> "Good" is how how many dB of fade margin over the receiver sensitivity
> (at a BER of 1*10^5). Per my first calculation, one should be able to
> do 300ft at 6Mbit/sec OFDM association. If not, either one of my
> assumptions is off, my calculations suck, or some part of the puzzle
> is not meeting published specifications. I really don't know which is
> the case here.

Interesting. As stated above the Receive Sensitivity you mentioned for that
throughput IMHO may be better than some common AP's/Cards offer.
Apart from this Linksys does not include this value in their Spec Sheets and
after a hopeless series of encounters with their Support desk it seems that
they still refuse to give out this technical type of info.
[Other firms are far more efficient and mention plenty of values at
different
frequencies and ranges.]

> >In fact this is far closer to my findings than that written on the
> >Product Spec Sheets.
> >
> >To have a Signal Connection or Throughput Peak is of little
> >interest here.
> >
> >Take for example the often quoted' standard WAP54 series with
> >a standard setup, no encryption etc.
> >Take a standard Card (eg. WPC54 series)
> >What have you found ?
> >At 10 meters save a 10 MB file to you server,?
> >What was the duration/signal stability/throughput ?
> >Note other ranges up to unusable.
> >Has anybody managed to upload a 10 MB file over
> >a 500 meter link with a fully efficient B connection using standard
> >out of box 2dB antennae?

> >Any comments, suggestions or links would be most appreciated.
> >A table with the conclusions could be published here for benefit of
> >all, including any comments on the efficiency of the Firms Support
> >team to resolve any issues evolving during your experience.

> >Thanks

> Gotta run...

Thanks for the presence.
Hope to hear from you.

__________________________________________________ _________

> Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Really interesting. Thanks.
Confirms some of my ideas on this.
We could build a Spread sheet on this with calculations included.
Great Expectations vs. Unforgiving Reality :-()
I'll be back later in the day.
Thanks
__________________________________________________ ________
"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:49:32 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Let's play with the numbers and see what worst case produces instead
> >of best case. Going to the link calcs at:
>
>http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for...-Fi#Link_Calcu
lations
> >and plugging in some numbers. A WRT54G dribbles about +15dBm tx
> >power. The antenna is about 2dBi gain, but the coax and connectors
> >eat about -1dB in loss. The laptop uses an marginal receiver with
> >about -88dBm sensitivity at 6Mbits/sec connection speed, the slowest
> >OFDM speed. The ceramic backed antennas in the laptop lid are good
> >for about -2dBi gain and another -2dB in coax and connector losses.
> >I'll aim for 20dB fade margin (just to be consistent).
> >
> > TX power = +15dBm
> > TX coax loss = 1dB
> > TX ant gain = 2dBi
> > Distance = unknown
> > RX ant gain = -2dBi
> > RX coax loss = -2dB
> > RX sens = -88dBm (at 6Mbits/sec)
> > Fade margin = 20dB
> >
> >Plugging into:
> >http://www.terabeam.com/support/calculations/som.php
> >and trying various distances until I get about 20dB fade margin, I get
> >a range of 0.06 miles or 316ft. That's quite good at 6Mbits/sec.
> >Maybe I'm being too optimisitic somewhere.
> >
> >Now, running the same numbers with a receive sensitivity of -68dBm at
> >54Mbits/sec, I get 0.006 miles or 32ft. So, your range is going to
> >be between those numbers (for OFDM).
>
> I suspected that was too good to be true. The range is about twice
> what I would expect from worst case calcs. Let's try again with
> better numbers.
>
> The RX coax loss and RX sensitivity on the laptop end are the problem.
> I just ripped apart a Toshiblah A75-S213:
> http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/A75-S213/
> and noticed that the tiny coax cables to the antennas are about 2ft
> long. I only allowed for -2dB coax and connector loss. The
> connectors are Hirose u-FL or iPex MHF connectors. The coax appears
> to be Sumitomo 0.4DS-PBA-H with an attentuation of about 7dB/meter
> (extrapolated from unreadable graph), or about -5dB loss for the coax
> and about 0.5dB for the connector.
>
> I dug out some tests I made with an Intel 2200BG card at various
> speeds. The numbers from my chart came from a DLink DI-624 and tend to
> be somewhat better than those found in the typical MiniPCI client
> radio. I found that the RX sensitivity at 6Mbits/sec (slowest ODFM
> speed) was about -84dB at the connector (including compensation for
> test leads). Therefore, the numbers should look like:
>
> TX power = +15dBm
> TX coax loss = 1dB
> TX ant gain = 2dBi
> Distance = unknown
> RX ant gain = -2dBi
> RX coax loss = -5.5dB (including connectors)
> RX sens = -84dBm (at 6Mbits/sec)
> Fade margin = 20dB
>
> http://www.terabeam.com/support/calculations/som.php
> I now get 0.025 miles or 132ft. That's about right.
>
> For 54Mbits/sec, the sensitivity is about -63dBm from my 2200BG
> tinkering, which yields a range of 0.0022 miles or 11.6ft. Yeah,
> that's a bit shorter than I expect but in the ballpark.
>
> --
> # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
> # 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
> # http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
> # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 02:23:27 +0100, "navprojects"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Confirms some of my ideas on this.
>We could build a Spread sheet on this with calculations included.
>Great Expectations vs. Unforgiving Reality :-()

What I really would like is the PHP source for the various
calculations on the page:
http://www.terabeam.com/support/calculations/som.php
There are others available but I like this one because it's simple.
(Warning: I'm a truely horrible programmist and can't even make my
own web pile look good and work well). I could probably scribble my
own but it's so much easier to just steal one that works.

Incidentally, see my assortment of RF path calculators and
spreadsheets at:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/rf-calc/

Please note that one can accurately predict the range, at any
connection speed with only:
1. The transition point where the speed changes from one speed to
another.
2. The RX sensitivity at various speeds and modulation modes at some
fixed reference level (BER = 1*10^5).
3. The desired fade margin. 20dB minimum is good enough for most
calcs.

I'll post the material attenuation specs when www.thirdbreak.org comes
back online.

Some work has already been done on comparing hardware.
http://www.seattlewireless.net/index...wareComparison
The problem is that the Receive sensitivity page link seems to have
been "reorganized":
http://www.seattlewireless.net/ReceiveSensitivity
Apparently there has been some number juggling designed to make
someones products look good. No clue how any of the measurements were
actually done, or whether they were just plagerized from the
manufacturers or chipset data sheets. Got one of these handy?

http://www.us.anritsu.com/products/A...cat3=38&cat4=0
Much as I like Wiki's, the common vandalism makes me wonder if it's
really such a good idea.

Back to meetings, work, interruptions, more meetings, etc... Sigh.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 01:56:33 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The problem is that the Receive sensitivity page link seems to have
>been "reorganized":
> http://www.seattlewireless.net/ReceiveSensitivity

This one works:
http://freenetworks.org/moin/index.c...iveSensitivity
However, it has the same problem. No clue where the numbers came
from, whether they are test results or from data sheets, and if
measured, what proceedure was used.

How to measure receiver sensitivity (one of several ways):

http://www.demarctech.com/techsuppor...eiver-test.pdf

http://www.demarctech.com/techsuppor...mw-rx-test.htm
I doubt if any of those posting numbers to the Wiki bothered to do any
of this.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Hello Jeff,
[Just before leaving for out of office business]
Many thanks for this post

"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 02:23:27 +0100, "navprojects"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Confirms some of my ideas on this.
> >We could build a Spread sheet on this with calculations included.
> >Great Expectations vs. Unforgiving Reality :-()
>
> What I really would like is the PHP source for the various
> calculations on the page:
> http://www.terabeam.com/support/calculations/som.php
> There are others available but I like this one because it's simple.
> (Warning: I'm a truely horrible programmist and can't even make my
> own web pile look good and work well). I could probably scribble my
> own but it's so much easier to just steal one that works.

Which is why I commented on a Open Web Database.
I have seen a couple in thepast but they were relevant to HW performance.
The Terabeam work is in fact an excellent example.

> Incidentally, see my assortment of RF path calculators and
> spreadsheets at: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/rf-calc/

Great, I also had seen a couple of these (Cisco etc), but the others are
very appropriate.

> Please note that one can accurately predict the range, at any
> connection speed with only:
> 1. The transition point where the speed changes from one speed to
> another.
> 2. The RX sensitivity at various speeds and modulation modes at some
> fixed reference level (BER = 1*10^5).
> 3. The desired fade margin. 20dB minimum is good enough for most
> calcs.

In fact it's interesting to note that 'expected range' calcs based on
specsheet
data are hard to come by. It might be nice to devise one.
Based on your approach above it should not be difficult.

> I'll post the material attenuation specs when www.thirdbreak.org comes
> back online.

OK

> Some work has already been done on comparing hardware.
> http://www.seattlewireless.net/index...wareComparison
> The problem is that the Receive sensitivity page link seems to have
> been "reorganized":
> http://www.seattlewireless.net/ReceiveSensitivity
> Apparently there has been some number juggling designed to make
> someones products look good. No clue how any of the measurements were
> actually done, or whether they were just plagerized from the
> manufacturers or chipset data sheets. Got one of these handy?

I had exemined these 2 well known sites several times but it seems that the
data
is not as updated as one might hope and the list of suppliers are rather
limited.

>
http://www.us.anritsu.com/products/A...?ID=744&cat=1&
cat2=3&cat3=38&cat4=0
> Much as I like Wiki's, the common vandalism makes me wonder if it's
> really such a good idea.

Do you know how much does the Anritsu costs?
A site that might interest you is the following which offers a reasonably
sophisicated Survey Tool for an acceptable price.
http://www.ekahau.com/?id=4600

> Back to meetings, work, interruptions, more meetings, etc... Sigh.

> # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
> # 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
> # http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
> # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

I should be back in the evening, Thank you and best wishes for a nice day.

"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 01:56:33 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >The problem is that the Receive sensitivity page link seems to have
> >been "reorganized":
> > http://www.seattlewireless.net/ReceiveSensitivity
>
> This one works:
> http://freenetworks.org/moin/index.c...iveSensitivity
> However, it has the same problem. No clue where the numbers came
> from, whether they are test results or from data sheets, and if
> measured, what proceedure was used.

I had already viewed this one and it seems quite like the seattle on and
lacks updating and other manufacturers.

> How to measure receiver sensitivity (one of several ways):
>
>
http://www.demarctech.com/techsuppor...t/wlan-receive
r-test.pdf
>
http://www.demarctech.com/techsuppor...t/100mw-rx-tes
t.htm
> I doubt if any of those posting numbers to the Wiki bothered to do any
> of this.

In fact the Denmarctech apparently offers cards etc with remarkable Rx sens
and Tx power.
Till later

> # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
> # 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
> # http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
> # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

"navprojects" <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>> Incidentally, see my assortment of RF path calculators and
>> spreadsheets at: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/rf-calc/

The Sputnik spreadsheet claims to calculate range for their products.
http://www.sputnik.com/support/docs/...eployment.html
I don't know how accurate it is becauase I haven't played with their
equipment.

>Great, I also had seen a couple of these (Cisco etc), but the others are
>very appropriate.

I have some issues with the Proxim spreadsheet, which uses 12dB as the
target fade margin, and the Cisco spreadsheet, which uses 10dB.
10-12dB is barely functional and not very reliable. I deal with one
5.6GHz link with a 13dB caculated fade margin. (The aesthetics
committee would not allow larger dish antennas.) It's down about 10%
of the time, which is acceptable because all it does is unload
non-time sensitive collected data.

>In fact it's interesting to note that 'expected range' calcs based on
>specsheet
>data are hard to come by. It might be nice to devise one.
>Based on your approach above it should not be difficult.

Yet another project. However, it's something I find interesting.
However, I will NOT concoct a fixed table or chart showing "typical"
speeds and ranges. There are far too many variations and I don't
wanna spend my life defending the numbers.

>> I'll post the material attenuation specs when www.thirdbreak.org comes
>> back online.

The site is back up. No clue what happened (or why it only happens
when I post a link to it). Probabaly a conspiracy.
http://www.thirdbreak.org/pipermail/...ne/000804.html
Note that the material attenuation numbers are all over the place and
vary with the source. I once read a report where an instructor had
students measure wall, door, and window attenuation. The result was
huge variations in attenuations. I was also amused at reading the
table of attenuations "accurate" to 3 decimal places. Sigh.

I've also had some entertainment dealing with people that claim they
have perfectly good coverage going through 4 or 5 walls. It's
possible, but more often, the signal arrives via a reflection through
open windows that simply bypass the walls. I got involved in such a
mystery when a company was doing a site survey and noticed that the
signal was useable no matter how many walls they went through. When I
showed up, I blocked a few windows with aluminum foil and wall
attentuation returned to normal. In another, it was leaking through
the HVAC ducts. Still another leaked trough the plenum above a
suspended acoustic ceiling. Translation: It's REALLY difficult to
get accurate material attenuation numbers as much depends on the
layout.

>http://www.us.anritsu.com/products/A...cat3=38&cat4=0
>Do you know how much does the Anritsu costs?

It was just released in Dec 2005 so it hasn't hit the used market yet.
List price is about 3 million Yen, which is about $26,000 or 15,000 UK
pounds at current exchange rates.

Just for fun, look at the prices for Anritsu accessories and tools:
http://www.us.anritsu.com/products/A...aleonline.aspx
$25 for a wrench that costs $2 at any hardware store?

Agilent 802.11 test equipment and software:
| http://www.agilent.com/find/wlan/

N4010A Wireless test set.
| www.agilent.com/find/N4017A
$13,000 for the basic box. About $6,000 more for the software.

Testing Wireless Products:
http://cpliterature.product.agilent....988-3762EN.pdf

>A site that might interest you is the following which offers a reasonably
>sophisicated Survey Tool for an acceptable price.
>http://www.ekahau.com/?id=4600

Ekahau is $6,000. Also see:
http://www.airespace.com/products/ap...ing_design.php
Airespace is now owned by Cisco.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558