Extending 802.11 Between Two Houses, Through Woods

Hi Folks,

We're trying to see if it's feasable (without spending thousands) to
get two houses wirelessly talking. They're about 200 feet apart and
there's woods between them.

Each house right now has 801.11g wireless routers and we were hoping
they would reach but no-go. I've dug around and seen antennas,
extenders, repeaters, etc and am still not sure what would make the
most sense for out situation. We don't need to stretch miles but
would like it to be reliable.

We're fine with sticking an antenna on each roof if that's what it
takes, but then how's that work? Is there just a line that's run down
and plugs into where the antenna attaches on the router? Or do we need
all new WAPs?

Thanks,

Jeff

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> Hi Folks,
>
> We're trying to see if it's feasable (without spending thousands) to
> get two houses wirelessly talking. They're about 200 feet apart and
> there's woods between them.
>
> Each house right now has 801.11g wireless routers and we were hoping
> they would reach but no-go. I've dug around and seen antennas,
> extenders, repeaters, etc and am still not sure what would make the
> most sense for out situation. We don't need to stretch miles but
> would like it to be reliable.
>
> We're fine with sticking an antenna on each roof if that's what it
> takes, but then how's that work? Is there just a line that's run down
> and plugs into where the antenna attaches on the router? Or do we need
> all new WAPs?

How tall are the trees, can you install antennas on each house that are
taller?

Adair

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> We're trying to see if it's feasable (without spending thousands) to
> get two houses wirelessly talking. They're about 200 feet apart and
> there's woods between them.
>
> Each house right now has 801.11g wireless routers and we were hoping
> they would reach but no-go. I've dug around and seen antennas,
> extenders, repeaters, etc and am still not sure what would make the
> most sense for out situation. We don't need to stretch miles but
> would like it to be reliable.
>
> We're fine with sticking an antenna on each roof if that's what it
> takes, but then how's that work? Is there just a line that's run down
> and plugs into where the antenna attaches on the router? Or do we need
> all new WAPs?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff

Where are you located at? (approximately)

Any idea if they are on the same power transformer? At my place in idaho
both my neighbor (1/4 mile away) and myself, had both houses,
garages/utility buildings/workshops, and guest houses, all on the same power
transformer. We used powerline networking with a wap/router in each
building (hooked to the powerline transceiver), and one two way sat on the
network too.

Just an aside, it's probably about 50/50, sometimes a group of houses are
off one transformer, and other areas have one transformer per house.. If it
does happen to work for you, the powerline networking stuff is up to 85 mbps
and about $130 for two devices (we used netgear at
http://www.netgear.com/Products/Powe...tAdapters.aspx )

When you talk about woods, how dense are they in the spring/summer?
Evergreens or deciduous trees? While you may be able to see thru the trees
when there are no leaves, they are very bad for Wifi (green water things
block the signal) when they bloom/grow.. And some areas (mostly in the
north) have metal snow roofs on the buildings that work real good as signal
blockers..

(E-Mail Removed) hath wroth:

>We're trying to see if it's feasable (without spending thousands) to
>get two houses wirelessly talking. They're about 200 feet apart and
>there's woods between them.

200ft is well within the distance that will work for running wire,
coax cable, or fiber optics. Are the houses 200ft apart, or the
probable antenna locations 200ft apart? Could I trouble you to
actually measure the distance?

For alternatives to wireless, see:
<http://www.homepna.com> (phone line)
<http://www.homeplug.com> (AC power line networking)
<http://www.mocalliance.org> (CATV coax sharing)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Space_Optics> (Free Space Optics)
You can also run 10base2 (cheapernet) coax at 10mbits/sec, Direct
burial gel filled CAT5 at 100Mbits/sec, or fiber optic cable at
100Mbits/sec. Lots of options.

Your IP address puts you in Albany NY. As I recall, the "woods" are
elm, sycamore, and maple, which are not particularly dense. If you
can see through the trees, you have a chance. In general, it's easier
to shoot through the tree trunks near the ground, than through the
denser leaves up higher. 200ft is not very far for wireless, but
you'll need a pair of high gain directional antennas at each end to
overcome the foliage attenuation.

>Each house right now has 801.11g wireless routers and we were hoping
>they would reach but no-go.

It would not have worked even if the routers were next to each other.
Routers normally do not talk to each other unless they have a WDS
feature. Could I trouble you to disclose what hardware you currently
have to work with?

Meanwhile, find a laptop, put one of the routers in a window, and take
a walk in the woods to see how far you can go. 200ft is about the
limit of the range with the stock antennas and without any folliage
attenuation, but it should give you an idea of what can be done.
Please remember that the leaves are currently rather sparce and will
become far denser in the spring.

>I've dug around and seen antennas,
>extenders, repeaters, etc and am still not sure what would make the
>most sense for out situation. We don't need to stretch miles but
>would like it to be reliable.

Repeaters suck. Details on request. WDS is a form of repeater that
sucks much less.

Reliability and trees are mutually exclusive. I would look into the
alternatives I suggested before attempting a wireless link.

>We're fine with sticking an antenna on each roof if that's what it
>takes, but then how's that work? Is there just a line that's run down
>and plugs into where the antenna attaches on the router? Or do we need
>all new WAPs?

Well, assuming that you can see each other from the rooftops, you
would need to either:
1. Install a radio on the roofs and run CAT5 with PoE (power over
ethernet) to an ethernet switch. The radio is mounted on a rigid pipe
inside a waterproof enclosure.
2. Install a radio somewhere in the house and run thick coaxial cable
to an antenna on the roofs. At 2.4GHz, coax cable is very lossy. The
length should be minimized. If snow is a problem, you might consider
mounting the radio in the attic, punching a hole in the roof, and
using as little coax cable as possible.

Notice that I did not specify a specific type of "radio" or model.
That's because I have no clue as to what you currently are doing, what
you have to work with, and how you plan to use the link. There are
different types of radios that will be defined by your network. For
example, are your client computers going to connect to the wireless
bridge using CAT5 coax, or are they connected via wireless?

If you go with the wireless route, it's likely that you'll need two
antennas, two wireless bridge radios, some coax cable, RF connectors,
outdoor mounting hardware, a length of coax cable, a coax pigtail,
etc.

--
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

(E-Mail Removed) wrote in news:1171933230.129883.252870
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Hi Folks,
>
> We're trying to see if it's feasable (without spending thousands) to
> get two houses wirelessly talking. They're about 200 feet apart and
> there's woods between them.

200 ft isn't too much for running direct burial ethernet.

Only problem I see is getting around tree roots.

DanS <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>200 ft isn't too much for running direct burial ethernet.
>Only problem I see is getting around tree roots.

I would hang my Christmas tree lamps on some of the coax and CAT5 runs
through the trees. The aesthetics weren't much a problem in a dense
forest, but the squirrels and mice were. So, we buried the problem.

It really depends on the type of tree and type of root system. In the
redwoods (where I live), the trees tend to have a fairly shallow root
system (4-6ft), a short tap root, and roots that spreads out over a
wide area. Chopping through these roots is a bad idea. Fortunately,
the upper layers of the forest floor is loose mulch and easy to
excavate, but not in a straight line. I have cross-linked
polyethylene (PEX) flexible water pipe snaking through the forest
floor, buried just below the surface. Inside is a mix of coax cable,
CAT5, fiber, and nylon pull line. One run is pressurized (because it
tended to flood). We also have a run of PVC pipe under the road, and
some outdoor RG-6/u coax that goes off into the forest to
who-knows-where.

While direct burial cable will also work without resorting to conduit,
I just hate working with the silicon gooey gel, and it's more
expensive than PEX.
<http://www.pexgol.com/Golan-Plastic-Pipe-Products/pex-pipes.htm>
<http://www.pexgol.com/Pex-Pipes-Catalog/Index.htm>
The catch is that it comes in an amazing array of colors and sizes. I
got lucky and obtained a large roll of 1" ID from the local water
district.

--
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

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news(E-Mail Removed):

> DanS <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>
>>200 ft isn't too much for running direct burial ethernet.
>>Only problem I see is getting around tree roots.
>
>
> While direct burial cable will also work without resorting to conduit,
> I just hate working with the silicon gooey gel, and it's more
> expensive than PEX.

True, but you only have to deal with the goo once at each end.

It's also a much smaller OD than conduit, and there's a good chance that
you can use a 'slitting' technique to bury it in the ground instead of
digging a trench.

We were only talking about 1 run I thought.

DanS <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>> DanS <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:
>>
>>>200 ft isn't too much for running direct burial ethernet.
>>>Only problem I see is getting around tree roots.
>>
>>
>> While direct burial cable will also work without resorting to conduit,
>> I just hate working with the silicon gooey gel, and it's more
>> expensive than PEX.

>True, but you only have to deal with the goo once at each end.

Sure, but it still makes a mess. The direct burial CAT5 is also
rather stiff and difficult to bend.

>It's also a much smaller OD than conduit, and there's a good chance that
>you can use a 'slitting' technique to bury it in the ground instead of
>digging a trench.

Yep. That's the way we started. Just lay it in a shallow and narrow
trench. That was fine until the cable was discovered by the local
chomping critters. Conduit seems to be the only effective protection.

>We were only talking about 1 run I thought.

True. However, I like to cram everything I can think might be useful
into the conduit. Also a pull line for adding even more later. Wire
is cheap ($0.06/ft for CAT5e), but labor is expensive. There are also
conglomerated structured wiring (EIA-570B), but I don't use any:
<http://www.broadbandutopia.com/composite.html>

All the extra CAT5 and coax in the conduit eventually gets used for
something. Something like this:
<http://www.swhowto.com>
or this mess:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/mess01.html>
The above is a PEX conduit run between the main house, a pool house,
and a garage/shop building. The original plan was for 2 runs of
CAT5e. I specified oversized PEX conduit. I think it was 1.5" ID or
something similar. 4 years later, it's now crammed with 3 coax runs,
4 CAT5 runs, and an alarm cable. Plan ahead.

--
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

>Sure, but it still makes a mess. The direct burial CAT5 is also
>rather stiff and difficult to bend.
>
>>It's also a much smaller OD than conduit, and there's a good chance that
>>you can use a 'slitting' technique to bury it in the ground instead of
>>digging a trench.
>
>Yep. That's the way we started. Just lay it in a shallow and narrow
>trench. That was fine until the cable was discovered by the local
>chomping critters. Conduit seems to be the only effective protection.

A shallow slit in the ground that wire can be poked into can be
made with a lawn edger.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:15:10 GMT, shb*NO*SPAM*@comporium.net (Si
Ballenger) wrote:

>
>>Sure, but it still makes a mess. The direct burial CAT5 is also
>>rather stiff and difficult to bend.
>>
>>>It's also a much smaller OD than conduit, and there's a good chance that
>>>you can use a 'slitting' technique to bury it in the ground instead of
>>>digging a trench.
>>
>>Yep. That's the way we started. Just lay it in a shallow and narrow
>>trench. That was fine until the cable was discovered by the local
>>chomping critters. Conduit seems to be the only effective protection.

>A shallow slit in the ground that wire can be poked into can be
>made with a lawn edger.

I live in a forest. What's a lawn? Lawns don't grow in the deep dark
forest.

I suspect that running a lawn edger on the forest floor will result in
either hitting a tree root, hitting a rock, hitting a buried dead
automobile, or spraying mulch all over the place like was a snow plow.
There are some things that are best done by hand (using a hoe and
straight blade shovel).

Anyway, PEX tubing suitable for conduit is about 1" or more in
diameter, which is rather too wide for a slit trench.

Drivel: Many years ago, the local CDF (california dept of forestry)
office installed a new radio vault. There was a substantial amount of
signal wiring between the dispatch center and the radio vault. PVC
conduit was used. Ssomeone cleverly installed a common concrete pull
box in the middle, obviously to make it easier to pull the fat wire
bundle through the pipes that snaked around the trees. One day, I get
a call from one of the dispatchers to see if I guess why half the
radios suddenly won't work. I eventually ripped the cover off the
concrete pull box and found that a gopher had eaten all the electrical
tape, pipe wrap, outer jacket, insulation, and some of the wire. It
was really impressive to see a 100 pair telco cable half eaten
through. It seems that the designers forgot to specify a bottom for
the pull box, with predictable results.

--
# 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