The title says it all - does rotating a mesh network satellite affect satellite coverage? I've read the mesh network signal coverage is a donut surrounding the satellite and wonder if rotating a satellite affects this donut and thus coverage, perhaps rotating the donut 90 degrees. The reason I ask is because I've seen mounts like this one that do exactly that and rotate the satellite 90 degrees off level with the floor/ceiling. Thanks!
Question Does Rotating a Mesh Network Satellite Affect Satellite Coverage?
- Thread starter Crag_Hack
- Start date
- May 29, 2013
- 38,654
- 3,817
- 156,790
- May 29, 2013
- 38,654
- 3,817
- 156,790
Depends on the company. Some companies like Ubiquiti post antenna radiation graphs for their WIFI APs. Most companies don't publish this data. You MIGHT be able to find it on the FCC website.
The actual coverage of a antenna really only matters if it is outdoors.
When you use wifi inside the signals are bouncing off the walls and ceilings. This is why you will signal level difference if you would close the door to a room, the signal many times will bounce around and come though opening rather than try to go directly though walls. The signals bouncing off things and having slightly different delays is also what makes mimo work better.
In addition the signal pattern of the devices is not fixed with beamforming that is on some wifi equipment. It is a pretty useless feature but they do try to change the radiated pattern.
I would not put much trust in reviews. Most people have no clue what they are talking about. Even if there was some standard test you could run it means nothing. The house the devices are in affect the wifi performance much more than any difference between hardware. Pretty much every wifi review you see is a review of the house. Even many of the so called professional reviews are just done in some guys house and not done in scientifically controlled environment.
When you use wifi inside the signals are bouncing off the walls and ceilings. This is why you will signal level difference if you would close the door to a room, the signal many times will bounce around and come though opening rather than try to go directly though walls. The signals bouncing off things and having slightly different delays is also what makes mimo work better.
In addition the signal pattern of the devices is not fixed with beamforming that is on some wifi equipment. It is a pretty useless feature but they do try to change the radiated pattern.
I would not put much trust in reviews. Most people have no clue what they are talking about. Even if there was some standard test you could run it means nothing. The house the devices are in affect the wifi performance much more than any difference between hardware. Pretty much every wifi review you see is a review of the house. Even many of the so called professional reviews are just done in some guys house and not done in scientifically controlled environment.
For us general users trial and error likely is the only option. Their might be some fancy devices that can measure and map out large commercial buildings.
I know for example when they plan cell towers they have software that can take the layout of a area of a city and calculate estimated signals levels both based on differences of elevation as well as radio shadows cast by large buildings. They never would let me play with the software 🙁
I know for example when they plan cell towers they have software that can take the layout of a area of a city and calculate estimated signals levels both based on differences of elevation as well as radio shadows cast by large buildings. They never would let me play with the software 🙁
If you mean more signal will go toward the wall than the ceiling then in general you want the antennas parallel to the walls. The concept of "donut" is only for a signal omni direction antenna it is not really valid when you have say 3 or 4 antennas but it is kinda true.
In theory at least more signal level should allow more signal to penetrate. Problem is the amount of signals walls absorb increases exponentially then again so does the water vapor in the air.
It all depends on what the walls are made out of. Things like concrete absorb massive amounts. If the surface is smooth they also reflect quite a bit.
This is a massively complex topic. I wish I had studied RF engineering more when I was getting my masters. RF engineers are in huge demand.
It all doesn't really matter you can do nothing about your walls all you can do is move the wifi radios around until they work the best.
In theory at least more signal level should allow more signal to penetrate. Problem is the amount of signals walls absorb increases exponentially then again so does the water vapor in the air.
It all depends on what the walls are made out of. Things like concrete absorb massive amounts. If the surface is smooth they also reflect quite a bit.
This is a massively complex topic. I wish I had studied RF engineering more when I was getting my masters. RF engineers are in huge demand.
It all doesn't really matter you can do nothing about your walls all you can do is move the wifi radios around until they work the best.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Can my PC handle a NVIDA 3060 TI without upgrading anything else?
- Started by hexzero13
- Replies: 22
-
-
News Introducing the Tom’s Hardware Premium Beta: Exclusive content for members
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 43
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram