<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/7/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Tony Langdon, VK3JED</b> <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br></blockquote><div><br><snip> <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Also, this is a reason I suggested UHF CB for initial alignment. The
<br>much higher legal power of UHF CB will allow the use of an omni on<br>that band at one end, and a directional at the other. Once you have<br>a rough (within 5-10 degrees), you should be able to get a viable<br>WiFi signal if the path is good, and then fine tune the alignment of
<br>the antennas... And I'll call it quits, if I can't get within 5<br>degrees using a map and reasonable. :-)<br><br>The problem's not that difficult to solve, you only need to get with<br>5 degrees (often 10 will do) on the initial alignment. We're not
<br>pointing lasers here, or even 10 GHz dishes...</blockquote><div><br>Yes, i think you are right. For your application UHF CB does seem to be the best way to go. Unfortunately for me in my application every degree will count :(
<br><br>As an aside - the new AOCP(S) and AOCP(A) licences allow hams to use the 13cm (2.4GHz) band with output power far in excess of unlicenced ISM equipment (although you have to remember that encryption CANNOT be used for amateur radio comms, which rules this out as an option for /actual/ use of WiFi). This could allow you to use a "test" signal on 13cm which is a lot closer to the real thing compared to UHF CB. The differences in wavelength could affect propagation wrt obstructions. Just a thought...