[MLB-WIRELESS] belated response
rowan at sensation.net.au
Wed Nov 10 22:55:57 EST 2004
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Mark Aitken wrote:
> At best, firing a 2.4 Ghz signal a a flat plane "survey marker" (as the
> original message was about) from probably
> not only a horizontal angle but also some angle with a vertical component
> would result in all sorts of reflected waves
> being seen and probably not much of a useful signal. Most probably
> contributed to the small size of such a surface.
> A larger surface area of many 10's of wavelengths would have better
> I have known of Ham Radio Operators reflecting their 10 GHz signals off of
> water towers to get around
> hills and it works quite well.
There's quite a large water tank a little further down the hill, but I
think it's concrete. Presumably a legacy from when this area was less
populated. I don't know if it's still in use. Would a concrete tank full
of water reflect RF at that frequency, or just absorb it?
I guess I need to concede that there's a big difference between amateur
radio experiments to squeeze the most out of the available
technology/spectrum, versus a stable 802.11 link.
Incidentally the name of the hill is Aitken Hill. :)
To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
More information about the Melbwireless