11–20 of 109 posts
Once again, IEEE 802.11ah -Wi-Fi HaLow-, completely forgotten. This one would be perfect for all the lights/sensors.
This is surprising to me. I'd have guessed it decreases quadratically (i.e. due to the inverse square law), not exponentially.
The paragraph below seems to contain an explanation, but I don't really understand it (namely because I don't know what that percentage "Coverage" column actually means, or what we mean with "the total distance at each QAM step").
> Wi-Fi signal strength decreases at an exponential rate as you move further away from a router. This is surprising to me. I'd have guessed it decreases quadratically (i.e. due to the inverse square law), not exponentially. The paragraph below seems to contain an explanation, but I don't really understand it (namely because I don't know what that percentage "Coverage" column actually means, or what we mean with "the…
But you're technically correct!
only 1 transmitter at a time per channel - across all WLANs, yours and your neighbours, with no deterministic way to avoid collisions.
It's a shared medium and it's not even half duplex, unlike the dedicated full duplex you would typically get with an ethernet cable to a switch port.
The fact that Wi-Fi achieves what it does with this limitation, and how it co-ordinates the dance of multiple unknown clients using the same medium - and in the presence of other RF technologies to boot - is indeed an incredible technology story, but this achilles heel is the single most defining thing about Wi-Fi performance.
> Wi-Fi signal strength decreases at an exponential rate as you move further away from a router. This is surprising to me. I'd have guessed it decreases quadratically (i.e. due to the inverse square law), not exponentially. The paragraph below seems to contain an explanation, but I don't really understand it (namely because I don't know what that percentage "Coverage" column actually means, or what we mean with "the…
yeah, it's pretty common to refer to x^2 as exponential colloquially since there's A. an exponent B. a single term for all values (vs. quadratic, cubic, quartic...) But you're technically correct!
> Wi-Fi signal strength decreases at an exponential rate as you move further away from a router. This is surprising to me. I'd have guessed it decreases quadratically (i.e. due to the inverse square law), not exponentially. The paragraph below seems to contain an explanation, but I don't really understand it (namely because I don't know what that percentage "Coverage" column actually means, or what we mean with "the…
yeah, it's pretty common to refer to x^2 as exponential colloquially since there's A. an exponent B. a single term for all values (vs. quadratic, cubic, quartic...) But you're technically correct!
But then again, the sentence uses the term "signal strength", not "throughput", so that would suggest quadratically. But I guess "signal strength" could be meant colloquially and mean more than just the raw signal power received by the antenna, here.
It's all very fuzzy to me, as it stands.
I'd like to understand why the WiFi spec developed so slowly from G to N and finally to AC but now it's seems like a new version is released every other year yet many of the features/extensions are poorly implemented or have nearly 0 real world improvement.
802.11 is in general a vast swag of cool tricks, and when enough ideas are thrown at a wall, many do end up sticking, but for the most part the benefits are cumulative. MIMO being one major exception.
> Wi-Fi signal strength decreases at an exponential rate as you move further away from a router. This is surprising to me. I'd have guessed it decreases quadratically (i.e. due to the inverse square law), not exponentially. The paragraph below seems to contain an explanation, but I don't really understand it (namely because I don't know what that percentage "Coverage" column actually means, or what we mean with "the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah, it's pretty common to refer to x^2 as exponential colloquially since there's A. an exponent B. a single term for all values (vs. quadratic, cubic, quartic...) But you're technically correct!
Do you also think that f(x) = x^1 is exponential? How about f(x) = x^0?