loss of signal through Glass

Any idea of the loss through a single pane 50 yr old window?
Mike

amdx wrote:
> Any idea of the loss through a single pane 50 yr old window?
> Mike
>
>


Hi,

Interesting question!

According to this:

http://en.kioskea.net/contents/wireless/wlpropa.php3

for untinted glass, attenuation would be "low". I guess that the actual
loss would probably depend on what frequency you're talking about, and
the thickness of the glass itself.

"ohaya" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:AAPvm.1470$(E-Mail Removed)...
:
:
: amdx wrote:
: > Any idea of the loss through a single pane 50 yr old window?
: > Mike
: >
: >
:
:
: Hi,
:
: Interesting question!
:
: According to this:
:
: http://en.kioskea.net/contents/wireless/wlpropa.php3
:
: for untinted glass, attenuation would be "low". I guess that the actual
: loss would probably depend on what frequency you're talking about, and
: the thickness of the glass itself.

Would likely be dependant on the impurities in the glass. Lead and iron
comne to mind.



:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:24:56 +0100, Mark McIntyre
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>>>However, if the window is IR reflective, or is
>>>lead doped for clarity, the attenuation will be much higher. Recent
>>>building construction at the local university uses such glass.
>>>Operating a cell phone in the building is ummm... tricky.
>>
>>They just had to install microcells inside my company's new office
>>building due to this effect. The company-supplied Blackberries didn't
>>even work... genius.
>
>
> In strong signal areas, I successfully installed a passive repeater.
> Two panel antennas on the roof, diplexer, coax to the basement, wall
> mounted panel for inside distribution. It wasn't a 100% fix, but it
> sure was cheap.
>
> Same problem at UCSC using NextG hardware:
> <http://802.11junk.com/cellular/UCSCcellcoveragemap.pdf>
> <http://www.nextgnetworks.net/universities/ucsantacruz.html>
> <http://currents.ucsc.edu/04-05/07-12/antennas.html>
> I once calculated that the energy consumption and costs of the
> micro-cellular system more than negated any energy savings from the RF
> blocking IR reflective windows. Of course, I was ignored. They also
> could have used clay or ceramic coated windows, which offer the same
> Low-E performance as the metalized flavor, but with less RF blocking.
> However, these are admittedly more expensive and less durable than
> metalized coatings. The system has been up since 2006. Opinions vary
> as to how well it works.
>
> Incidentally, UCSC put the new microcellular up/down converters and
> antennas on the roof tops and in the basement. Fiber optic cables
> everywhere. The result is that the local microcellular site works
> well on the top floors, and in the basement, but is not so great in
> between. Oh well.
>


Hi,

The OP indicated the window (singular?) was 50 years old.

Jim

In message <JKQvm.20061$_(E-Mail Removed)> Mark
McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)> was claimed to have wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> However, if the window is IR reflective, or is
>> lead doped for clarity, the attenuation will be much higher. Recent
>> building construction at the local university uses such glass.
>> Operating a cell phone in the building is ummm... tricky.
>
>They just had to install microcells inside my company's new office
>building due to this effect. The company-supplied Blackberries didn't
>even work... genius.

Some of us pay good money for such glass.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:57:11 -0500, "amdx" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Any idea of the loss through a single pane 50 yr old window?
> Mike
>
From what I remember from school (about as long ago as your
window), glass is a liquid. So it would tend to be much thicker at the
bottom of the pane than at the top, after all these years.. So kind of
wiggle your antenna higher up.
:P

In message <(E-Mail Removed)> Jeff Liebermann
<(E-Mail Removed)> was claimed to have wrote:

>Glass is not a liquid:
><http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html>
>
>The anecdote about the glass being thicker at the bottom was the
>result of misinterpreting the thickening of the glass in mideaval
>stained glass windows. The thickening was an artifact of the way they
>made the glass and not from any cold flow effects.
><http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html>

I've been trying to find time to hunt down one of my physics teachers to
rub this one in his face...

>Ummm... none if this has anything to do with glass attenuating RF.

If glass did interfere with RF signal based on the thickness of the
glass, this would be very significant.