[MLB-WIRELESS] [TIB] A new offer has been added to TIB-23/01/2003

[paul van den bergen]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:18 pm, Tony Langdon, VK3JED wrote:
> For no overlap, you have to be 5 channels apart...  That's
>
> 1, 6, 11
> OR
> 2, 7, 12
> OR
> 3, 8, 13

sorry? 5 channels? the sideband interference is 5 channels wide?  Are you 
sure? Hmmm. not much of a frequency band selection then...
hang on, that is only 4 channels seperation, 1(2,3,4,5)6(7,8,9,10)11
5 channels apart, 4 channels seperation.

anyone know what shape the off-channel frequency response looks like?

I guess you could have all 14 channels operating at once if you were willing 
to put up with really crap transfer rates...  

Let me reconsider this.

I guess the point I wanted to make was that limiting MW to a single channel is 
a bad idea.  I guess at the same time, my schema (1-2,5-6,9-10,13-14) would 
also limit choice.  but it would have a reason.

so on second thoughts, I figure as long as dstumbler is available, when 
setting up a new AP or bridge, or new AdHoc network, choose a channel that is 
least represented in your local area...

the point about sticking to the selected channels above was that it gave the 
best chance of having a decent spacing between channels so that the channel 
you select for your new service is as far as possible from any others.

if the channel seperation is indeed 4 channels, then that stuffs that a bit, 
but the same principal applies. 1 or 2,  7, 13 or 14 seems the best in that 
case



-- 
Dr Paul van den Bergen
Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures
caia.swin.edu.au
pvandenbergen at swin.edu.au
IM:bulwynkl2002
would somebody get this big walking carpet out of my way?

To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message