802.11b wireless and electric fences......

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by steve, Mar 10, 2005.

  1. steve

    steve Guest

    I have a PC out in the garage that is on the wireless LAN via an
    antennae mounted on the exterior wall of the garage - opposite one of
    the bedroom windows.

    The PC is able to receive well.....but what it sends to the AP is often
    missed/dropped/not heard. That's OK for protocols that detect errors and
    retry.....but sucks for ones that don't (like nntp).

    Aneeeeway......I have also been recovering and restoring the 5kms of
    electric fences that used to be around this place.....and I'm about half
    way finished.

    Having read about how electric fences can interfere with phone lines
    (via induction) I have my main line at least 250 meters from the phone
    line buried - parallel - next to the road out front.

    But what is REALLY odd is that as I extend the coverage of the electric
    fencing, the wireless reception in the garage gets better and better!!!

    I'm now able to post to usenet from the PC in the garage.....a thing not
    possible until 2 days ago when a I 'lit up' the fences that pass the house.

    Weird......
     
    steve, Mar 10, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. steve

    Bobs Guest

    steve wrote:
    > I have a PC out in the garage that is on the wireless LAN via an
    > antennae mounted on the exterior wall of the garage - opposite one of
    > the bedroom windows.
    >
    > The PC is able to receive well.....but what it sends to the AP is often
    > missed/dropped/not heard. That's OK for protocols that detect errors and
    > retry.....but sucks for ones that don't (like nntp).
    >
    > Aneeeeway......I have also been recovering and restoring the 5kms of
    > electric fences that used to be around this place.....and I'm about half
    > way finished.
    >
    > Having read about how electric fences can interfere with phone lines
    > (via induction) I have my main line at least 250 meters from the phone
    > line buried - parallel - next to the road out front.
    >
    > But what is REALLY odd is that as I extend the coverage of the electric
    > fencing, the wireless reception in the garage gets better and better!!!
    >
    > I'm now able to post to usenet from the PC in the garage.....a thing not
    > possible until 2 days ago when a I 'lit up' the fences that pass the house.
    >
    > Weird......


    Not using 802.11b would be a good start, Withers. Get with the times,
    cretin.

    How's your ass?
     
    Bobs, Mar 10, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. steve

    steve Guest

    Bobs wrote:

    > Not using 802.11b would be a good start, Withers. Get with the times,
    > cretin.


    You wear your manifest ignorance like a crown.

    802.11b has better range than 802.11g and still goes 5 times faster than
    my 2mbps Internet connection......

    ......and it's cheap. A solid linux-compatible 802.11b card from DSE
    costs $61.

    Good enough for me, Bobs. You can do whatever you like.

    Relieving your ignorance would be a good start.......but you have been
    interested in the past and I wouldn't expect you to start at this late
    date.
     
    steve, Mar 10, 2005
    #3
  4. steve

    Enkidu Guest

    steve wrote:
    > I have a PC out in the garage that is on the wireless LAN via an
    > antennae mounted on the exterior wall of the garage - opposite one of
    > the bedroom windows.
    >
    > The PC is able to receive well.....but what it sends to the AP is often
    > missed/dropped/not heard. That's OK for protocols that detect errors and
    > retry.....but sucks for ones that don't (like nntp).
    >
    > Aneeeeway......I have also been recovering and restoring the 5kms of
    > electric fences that used to be around this place.....and I'm about half
    > way finished.
    >
    > Having read about how electric fences can interfere with phone lines
    > (via induction) I have my main line at least 250 meters from the phone
    > line buried - parallel - next to the road out front.
    >
    > But what is REALLY odd is that as I extend the coverage of the electric
    > fencing, the wireless reception in the garage gets better and better!!!
    >
    > I'm now able to post to usenet from the PC in the garage.....a thing not
    > possible until 2 days ago when a I 'lit up' the fences that pass the house.
    >
    > Weird......
    >

    Well, it could be a couple of things. The first possibility
    is a sort of Faraday Cage effect - the fence is shielding
    the wireless from some source of interference. Second
    possibility is that it acting as a huge reflector. Thirdly,
    it might be absorbing/re-radiating the signal, something
    like option 2 but more active....

    Cheers,

    Cliff


    --

    Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
     
    Enkidu, Mar 10, 2005
    #4
  5. steve

    Adder Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > I have a PC out in the garage that is on the wireless LAN via an
    > antennae mounted on the exterior wall of the garage - opposite one of
    > the bedroom windows.
    >
    > The PC is able to receive well.....but what it sends to the AP is often
    > missed/dropped/not heard. That's OK for protocols that detect errors and
    > retry.....but sucks for ones that don't (like nntp).
    >
    > Aneeeeway......I have also been recovering and restoring the 5kms of
    > electric fences that used to be around this place.....and I'm about half
    > way finished.
    >
    > Having read about how electric fences can interfere with phone lines
    > (via induction) I have my main line at least 250 meters from the phone
    > line buried - parallel - next to the road out front.
    >
    > But what is REALLY odd is that as I extend the coverage of the electric
    > fencing, the wireless reception in the garage gets better and better!!!
    >
    > I'm now able to post to usenet from the PC in the garage.....a thing not
    > possible until 2 days ago when a I 'lit up' the fences that pass the house.
    >
    > Weird......


    loads of thing use the 2.4 Ghz'
    check you have notgot a cordless phone on this band for example
     
    Adder, Mar 10, 2005
    #5
  6. steve

    Bobs Guest

    steve wrote:
    > Bobs wrote:
    >
    >> Not using 802.11b would be a good start, Withers. Get with the times,
    >> cretin.

    >
    >
    > You wear your manifest ignorance like a crown.
    >
    > 802.11b has better range than 802.11g and still goes 5 times faster than
    > my 2mbps Internet connection......
    >
    > .....and it's cheap. A solid linux-compatible 802.11b card from DSE
    > costs $61.
    >
    > Good enough for me, Bobs. You can do whatever you like.
    >
    > Relieving your ignorance would be a good start.......but you have been
    > interested in the past and I wouldn't expect you to start at this late
    > date.
    >
    >
    >


    Withers, setting up networks is my job. Please don't try to tell me what
    the virtues of .11b is. There is no virtue to it. It's crap. But then
    again, the same can be said for wireless in general. Hippy technology
    for Starbucks drinking beetniks with their 5 cent laptops.

    No surprise to see you as an avid fan of it. Wifi = Wireless Is For
    Idiots. Take that to the bank.

    I wonder how many people in NZ right now are leeching off unsecure
    wireless networks.
     
    Bobs, Mar 10, 2005
    #6
  7. "steve" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have a PC out in the garage that is on the wireless LAN via an antennae
    >mounted on the exterior wall of the garage - opposite one of the bedroom
    >windows.
    >
    > The PC is able to receive well.....but what it sends to the AP is often
    > missed/dropped/not heard. That's OK for protocols that detect errors and
    > retry.....but sucks for ones that don't (like nntp).
    >
    > Aneeeeway......I have also been recovering and restoring the 5kms of
    > electric fences that used to be around this place.....and I'm about half
    > way finished.
    >
    > Having read about how electric fences can interfere with phone lines (via
    > induction) I have my main line at least 250 meters from the phone line
    > buried - parallel - next to the road out front.
    >
    > But what is REALLY odd is that as I extend the coverage of the electric
    > fencing, the wireless reception in the garage gets better and better!!!
    >
    > I'm now able to post to usenet from the PC in the garage.....a thing not
    > possible until 2 days ago when a I 'lit up' the fences that pass the
    > house.
    >
    > Weird......


    heh, there's something so quintessentially kiwi about that... as if you
    fixed it with a bit of no.8 wire. ;-)
     
    Kevin Hendrikssen, Mar 10, 2005
    #7
  8. steve wrote:
    >> Not using 802.11b would be a good start, Withers.


    > 802.11b has better range than 802.11g and still goes 5 times faster than
    > my 2mbps Internet connection......


    g gear locked down to b speed will give better signal/range too.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Mar 10, 2005
    #8
  9. steve

    Rider Guest

    "steve" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have a PC out in the garage that is on the wireless LAN via an antennae
    >mounted on the exterior wall of the garage - opposite one of the bedroom
    >windows.
    >
    > The PC is able to receive well.....but what it sends to the AP is often
    > missed/dropped/not heard. That's OK for protocols that detect errors and
    > retry.....but sucks for ones that don't (like nntp).
    >
    > Aneeeeway......I have also been recovering and restoring the 5kms of
    > electric fences that used to be around this place.....and I'm about half
    > way finished.
    >
    > Having read about how electric fences can interfere with phone lines (via
    > induction) I have my main line at least 250 meters from the phone line
    > buried - parallel - next to the road out front.
    >
    > But what is REALLY odd is that as I extend the coverage of the electric
    > fencing, the wireless reception in the garage gets better and better!!!
    >
    > I'm now able to post to usenet from the PC in the garage.....a thing not
    > possible until 2 days ago when a I 'lit up' the fences that pass the
    > house.
    >
    > Weird......


    Now I know how to get a wireless system in an old villa here working
    properly LOL

    The reception in this house is terrible (and its not a big house) ..
    obvioulsy it just needs an electric fence, not a wooden one.

    :)
     
    Rider, Mar 10, 2005
    #9
  10. steve wrote:
    > The PC is able to receive well.....but what it sends to the AP is often
    > missed/dropped/not heard. That's OK for protocols that detect errors and
    > retry.....but sucks for ones that don't (like nntp).


    NNTP runs on TCP, running on IP... all on your 802.11b connection.

    The TCP layer is where the reliable delivery is implemented, so NNTP
    does have automatic error detection and retry that would work if your
    underlying network were operating correctly.

    The Other Guy
     
    The Other Guy, Mar 10, 2005
    #10
  11. steve

    Bruce Hoult Guest

    In article <>,
    steve <> wrote:

    > I have a PC out in the garage that is on the wireless LAN via an
    > antennae mounted on the exterior wall of the garage - opposite one of
    > the bedroom windows.
    >
    > The PC is able to receive well.....but what it sends to the AP is often
    > missed/dropped/not heard. That's OK for protocols that detect errors and
    > retry.....but sucks for ones that don't (like nntp).


    That doesn't make sense. nntp is buitl on top of tcp, which *does*
    error correction and retry.

    --
    Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
    Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
     
    Bruce Hoult, Mar 10, 2005
    #11
  12. steve

    Jay Guest

    "steve" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have a PC out in the garage that is on the wireless LAN via an antennae
    >mounted on the exterior wall of the garage - opposite one of the bedroom
    >windows.
    >
    > The PC is able to receive well.....but what it sends to the AP is often
    > missed/dropped/not heard. That's OK for protocols that detect errors and
    > retry.....but sucks for ones that don't (like nntp).
    >
    > Aneeeeway......I have also been recovering and restoring the 5kms of
    > electric fences that used to be around this place.....and I'm about half
    > way finished.
    >
    > Having read about how electric fences can interfere with phone lines (via
    > induction) I have my main line at least 250 meters from the phone line
    > buried - parallel - next to the road out front.
    >
    > But what is REALLY odd is that as I extend the coverage of the electric
    > fencing, the wireless reception in the garage gets better and better!!!
    >
    > I'm now able to post to usenet from the PC in the garage.....a thing not
    > possible until 2 days ago when a I 'lit up' the fences that pass the
    > house.
    >
    > Weird......


    How long till she'll let you live back in the house? ;-)
    Jay
     
    Jay, Mar 11, 2005
    #12
  13. steve

    steve Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > steve wrote:
    >
    >>> Not using 802.11b would be a good start, Withers.

    >
    >
    >> 802.11b has better range than 802.11g and still goes 5 times faster
    >> than my 2mbps Internet connection......

    >
    >
    > g gear locked down to b speed will give better signal/range too.


    Sure......but why pay extra? :)
     
    steve, Mar 11, 2005
    #13
  14. steve

    steve Guest

    The Other Guy wrote:
    > steve wrote:
    >
    >> The PC is able to receive well.....but what it sends to the AP is
    >> often missed/dropped/not heard. That's OK for protocols that detect
    >> errors and retry.....but sucks for ones that don't (like nntp).

    >
    >
    > NNTP runs on TCP, running on IP... all on your 802.11b connection.
    >
    > The TCP layer is where the reliable delivery is implemented, so NNTP
    > does have automatic error detection and retry that would work if your
    > underlying network were operating correctly.
    >
    > The Other Guy


    I thought that if nntp didn't receive something it expected.....it would
    simply time out.
     
    steve, Mar 11, 2005
    #14
  15. steve

    steve Guest

    Bruce Hoult wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > steve <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I have a PC out in the garage that is on the wireless LAN via an
    >>antennae mounted on the exterior wall of the garage - opposite one of
    >>the bedroom windows.
    >>
    >>The PC is able to receive well.....but what it sends to the AP is often
    >>missed/dropped/not heard. That's OK for protocols that detect errors and
    >>retry.....but sucks for ones that don't (like nntp).

    >
    > That doesn't make sense. nntp is buitl on top of tcp, which *does*
    > error correction and retry.


    Sure.....for any discrete transmission.

    But nntp can't tell when something has gone missing.......

    Otherwise there is no explanation for why I can do e-mail and web
    browsing.....but usenet reading / posting to *any* server wouldn't work.

    It works now....

    gtk-gnutella works now, too......and it didn't before.
     
    steve, Mar 11, 2005
    #15
  16. steve

    Bob McLellan Guest

    OK Steve, I've got about 200m as the crow flies between PC's plus some
    electric fences (and guitars). I'd like to connect them. How far will b
    (and g) actually go?

    steve wrote:
    > Bobs wrote:
    >
    >> Not using 802.11b would be a good start, Withers. Get with the times,
    >> cretin.

    >
    >
    > You wear your manifest ignorance like a crown.
    >
    > 802.11b has better range than 802.11g and still goes 5 times faster than
    > my 2mbps Internet connection......
    >
    > .....and it's cheap. A solid linux-compatible 802.11b card from DSE
    > costs $61.
    >
    > Good enough for me, Bobs. You can do whatever you like.
    >
    > Relieving your ignorance would be a good start.......but you have been
    > interested in the past and I wouldn't expect you to start at this late
    > date.
    >
    >
    >
     
    Bob McLellan, Mar 11, 2005
    #16
  17. steve wrote:
    >>> 802.11b has better range than 802.11g and still goes 5 times faster
    >>> than my 2mbps Internet connection......


    >> g gear locked down to b speed will give better signal/range too.


    > Sure......but why pay extra? :)


    umm, for better signal/range, I thought I was pretty clear with that. :)
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Mar 11, 2005
    #17
  18. Bob McLellan wrote:
    > OK Steve, I've got about 200m as the crow flies between PC's plus some
    > electric fences (and guitars). I'd like to connect them. How far will b
    > (and g) actually go?


    depends on the antennas used.
    I use b over a 2km LOS across the harbour here in dunedin, and a company
    I know runs b over a 17km LOS across some country side from Rudd
    Rd(Wakari) to Toko mouth.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Mar 11, 2005
    #18
  19. steve

    EMB Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Bob McLellan wrote:
    >
    >> OK Steve, I've got about 200m as the crow flies between PC's plus some
    >> electric fences (and guitars). I'd like to connect them. How far will
    >> b (and g) actually go?

    >
    >
    > depends on the antennas used.
    > I use b over a 2km LOS across the harbour here in dunedin, and a company
    > I know runs b over a 17km LOS across some country side from Rudd
    > Rd(Wakari) to Toko mouth.


    I've got g running full speed 300m LOS with a pair of cheap
    omnidiectional antennae, and have successfully run a 2km LOS b link with
    a couple of homemade antennae.


    --
    EMB
     
    EMB, Mar 12, 2005
    #19
  20. steve

    steve Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > steve wrote:
    >
    >>>> 802.11b has better range than 802.11g and still goes 5 times faster
    >>>> than my 2mbps Internet connection......

    >
    >
    >>> g gear locked down to b speed will give better signal/range too.

    >
    >
    >> Sure......but why pay extra? :)

    >
    >
    > umm, for better signal/range, I thought I was pretty clear with that. :)



    That hasn't been my experience here. I have 3 x 802.11g cards not in
    use for this very reason.

    Maybe it's just those cards.....
     
    steve, Mar 12, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Oli
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    884
  2. Tony Warburton

    difference between 802.3b and 802.11b

    Tony Warburton, Nov 25, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,586
    =?Utf-8?B?UGF2ZWwgQS4=?=
    Nov 25, 2004
  3. Todd Blum

    802.1d and 802.11b

    Todd Blum, Jan 4, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,886
    Ron Bandes
    Jan 6, 2004
  4. Lynn

    Electric fences

    Lynn, Dec 23, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    1,129
    Chris
    Dec 26, 2003
  5. steve

    More on 802.11b and eelctric fences.

    steve, Mar 12, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    337
    The Other Guy
    Mar 12, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page